Arms and the Law

Yesterday it passed by a popular vote of 61%-39%. Pretty extensive changes. The right as guaranteed extends to ammunition and accessories (no magazine bans). Any restrictions are reviewed under strict scrutiny. The State must defend these rights and may not decline to do so (which will put the Attorney General in an interesting position if any future legislature enacts a gun restriction.

Language that said the guarantee will not affect the ability of the legislature to restrict the carrying of concealed arms is replaced by language saying it will not restrict the ability of the legislature to restrict convicted felons or those found mentally infirm by a court.

There have been proposals by antigunners to ban firearms receipt by those on the "terrorist watch list," which make this article quite relevant. Based on a "leak," it points out that:

(1) Between 700,000 and 1.5 million people are on the list;

(2) The standard for listing is "reasonable suspicion";

(3) More than 40% on the list, some 280,000, are not even suspected of links to any known terrorist organization;

(4) 900 times a day, a person is added to the list or information on him is supplemented.

I must wonder how useful any "watch list" can be that has 700,000 people on it. Obviously that number cannot be "watched." The list just takes on a life of its own; it is maintained because it is supposed to be maintained.

He may have been on the other side, but by all accounts was a nice guy. I met him briefly in the Supreme Court elevator, coming back from the argument in Sheriffs Pritz & Mack v. U.S., and with some effort he managed a smiling "hello."

I was in D.C. on the day when Hinkley shot him and President Reagan, and heard all the sirens going off, back 33 years ago.

Right here.

One of these just came over the transom. It's an interesting invention for those who live in or visit cities that essentially forbid you to carry anything like a weapon (Boston, as I recall, forbids even pepper spray, unless you have a carry permit). It's a lanyard for your key ring that, if you have a heavy enough ring, coincidentally turns it into a weapon. Just coincidence, understand. Just like the auto theft device known as "The Club" just coincidentally makes a good club. A .45 would beat either, but in some high-crime jurisdictions that's not an option, a legal option anyway.

DC moves for a stay of the injunction. It asks either for a stay pending appeal (which would last until any appeal is decided) or for one of 180 days, to give it time to draft a permit system. I guess the City Council is a little slow-moving.

Alan Gura's blog post links to a pdf of a DC Police memo giving its reaction. Essentially:

1. DC residents who carry an unregistered gun can be charged with failure to register it, but not for carrying it. (By implication, those with registered guns can carry them).

2. Nonresidents who carry should not be arrested (but take note of their ID in case that changes).

3. Registrations cannot be denied because the owner is a nonresident.

Blog post and link to opinion here. District Court of DC rules that DC's requirement for a permit to carry, combined with its refusal to issue such permits, is unconstitutional, and (2) so is its ban on issuing permits to nonresidents.

A major advance that finally expands judicial recognition to "bear arms." And a success based on narrow targeting of the issues.

Story here It now appears that:

1) the murderer had a pocketful of ammunition, suggesting that, but for the psychiatrist shooting him and other staff jumping him, he would have gone on a killing spree. "We believe that Mr. Plotts, if it wasn't for the heroic action of the doctor and the caseworker, we believe he was there and was going to reload that revolver and continue to fire and continue to kill."

2) The killer had been committed before, and his "records indicate has an extensive criminal past including a 1996 conviction for robbery, is prohibited from carrying a weapon."

Story here. The killer murdered a psychiatric case worker, and then was shot and seriously wounded by a doctor who was carrying a gun. The doctor was nicked by a shot from the killer, it's not yet reported whether that came before or after he hit the killer.

This may illustrate what others have noted: the other side can claim that mass shootings have not been stopped by self-defenders, because mass killings are arbitrarily defined to involve four or more dead, and when a self-defender is present he or she stops the attack before it can reach that number.

UPDATE: the doctor got three hits on the murderer. I'd say the good guy was no amateur.

A bit of background: the good professor is a CCW instructor and author of "The Ten Commandments of Propaganda," "The National Rifle Association and the Media: The Motivating Force of Negative Coverage," and "Rise of the Anti-Media: In-Forming America's Concealed Weapon Carry Movement." His speciality is speech communication.

A most interesting article.

over its gun restrictions.

"While we had originally planned to use the Tennessee facility for new equipment and for production of new product lines only, we have decided that it is more prudent from the point of view of our future welfare to move the Maryland production lines in their entirety to the new Tennessee facility."

I hope there will be a lot more such relocations, considering that the center of American gun manufacturing was historically Connecticut and Massachusetts.

Joshua Prince announces that a class action brought by himself and two other attorneys has settled. It challenged Philadelphia's disclosure of private carry permit information. Philadelphia disclosed information regarding appeals from initial denials or revocations online, despite a State law provision making it confidential.

The settlement terms include the city paying $1.45 million, agreeing never to disclose again, scrapping information requirements that exceed those embodied in statute, and instituting a lot of other reforms.

Right here. Not that I know much about apps -- I'm happy with a smartphone that will take calls, check email, and once in a great while call up a browser. I'd settle for the first two.

Rep. Robin Kelly (bought, or at least leased, by Mayor Bloomberg) proposes a ban on firearm advertising directly at children or their parents, such as prohibitions on brand name t-shirts and caps "marketed for children," and a ban on firearms in colors appealing to young shooters.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney calls for Capitol Hill Police to investigate Larry Pratt of GOA, since he dared to say that the Second Amendment is aimed at preventing tyrannical government. ( here's Larry's reply).

I guess if they can't get at the Second Amendment, they have to try to strike at the First.

Background: of course felons are generally forbidden to possess firearms. But if put in reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury, they have the same right to self defense as has anyone else.

Jersey City, NJ. Man wanted for murder ambushes and murders officer. His wife responds with ""He should've taken more [officers] with him," and ""Sorry for the officer's family. That's, you know, whatever."

They even built a memorial for the killer, complete with empty liquor bottles and a "thugs in peace" message. They should add an epitaph, with the words of Lord Byron

"In all of antiquity you'll ne'er survey
A site more dignified than this
Here lie the bones of Castlereigh;
Stop, traveller, and p__s."

Video here. California already had, if I recall correctly, handgun registration (in effect), State as well as Federal background checks, a 15-day waiting period, one gun a month rationing, no carry (open or concealed) without a "may issue" permit, and an "assault weapon ban." Not to mention expensive "safety tests" that have nothing to do with safety (witness the fact that police and prosecutors' guns are exempt from them).

But the low-info people interviewed want "stricter" controls without apparently having any idea what those might be. Presumably, the fact that crime continues proves that the gun laws aren't strict enough.

The legislature responds by making the "safety" requirements applicable to single-shot handguns, claiming that people are buying single shots and making them into repeaters.

I don't know what to file this under -- an example of where the other side wants to go, or an example of how newspaper stories are written by cut and paste of slogans that have been used and re-used for decades.