Arms and the Law

A review of three books on the Second Amendment, in the Wall Street Journal. The reviewer is not impressed with them, nor am I.

Two imprisoned for smuggling guns to Mexico. They used a pedestrian crossing. Each had two AK-type rifles taped to their body. A little obvious.

Report here. It's been that way for 48 consecutive months.

When I first was getting involved with the gun rights issue (early 1970s), as I recall gun sales were about 3 million a year. Today it's over 12 million. The antis' time has passed.

In Garland v. Vanderstock, Firearms Policy Coalition, joined by Second Amendment Foundation, sued to challenge several aspects of ATF's "ghost gun" receiver regulations. The district court granted an injunction against enforcement of the entire regulation. The government appealed to the Fifth Circuit and asked it to stay the injunction. The Circuit stayed only part of it, ruling that the government hadn't shown it was likely to succeed on the rest.

The government has now appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court. It moves the Court to vacate the stay and, if necessary, treat the motion as a petition for certiorari before judgment (i.e., before the Fifth Circuit rule on the appeal).

Here. His business dealings come in at page 27, the judge starts getting involved at 45, the constitutionality of the gun charge is raised at 91, and at 92-93 the judge asks about a strange provision that says if Biden breaches the plea agreement he must be given the opportunity to cure the breach and a hearing before the judge before anything is done.

Ha! Apparently he wanted even more than he was getting, which was two very serious tax charges dropped to misdemeanors, and the gun charge given diversion and eventual dismissal. He also wanted immunity for charges of failure to register as an agent of a foreign government.

More thoughts, from a defense attorney.

"So, this was either astounding incompetence or corruption on DOJ's part. I think it is corruption. This looks like a wink and a nod deal (as @shipwreckedcrew has noted) where DOJ would have plausible deniability if the judge asked no questions and accepted the deal."

On the duality of the Second Amendment.

Story here. If anyone wonders why robbery rates there are high, take the case of one robber mentioned:

"MPD arrested 19-year-old Isaiah Matthews on Tuesday after police said he stole a victim's car keys at gunpoint on D Street SE.

But Matthews has a criminal record that includes prior misdemeanor assault and threats offenses for which he wasn't kept behind bars for long.

His threats offense earned him a 120-day sentence in January that was suspended as long as he could fulfill his one-year probation, according to court records. Matthews became delinquent soon after, and he wasn't ordered to serve out the remaining 90 days of his sentence until he was arrested in April.

Matthews was released from jail earlier this month before being rearrested Tuesday on robbery charges."

A panel of the 11th Circuit (far southeastern US) sustained the Florida law forbidding 18-21 year olds from buying rifles, and now the Circuit has voted to rehear the case en bank. I suspect such rehearings are like petitions for cert; they can go either way, but are about 2:1 more likely to reverse.

Opinion here. The law required a gun owner to pay a fee, donate to a charity (not yet named, but to be named by the city manager), and hold liability insurance. The court dismissed everything with prejudice, except the counts alleging that the payment to a named charity might violate freedom of expression and association.

The Supreme Court granted cert in this case, and it is worrisome. (1) Mr. Rahimi is quite a violent person; (2) if there is any prohibited person category that is likely to fail "text, history, and tradition" standards, it is the one for those subject to civil DV restraining orders. So this is the acid test for Bruen and its standards.

Six dead. It's part of a wave of them.

and of course the incident never makes national news. It just doesn't fit the preferred narrative.

"Senior guns down mugger who appeared to threaten him without dropping cigarette." (That is, the senior didn't drop his cigarette). This being NYC, the senior is facing prosecution.

US v. Rahimi. The Fifth Circuit struck down the ban on gun possession by persons subject to a DV restraining order. Terrible facts -- the defendant was a violent scumbag.

Dave Workman is celebrating!

I remember the oral argument.... and realizing how Kennedy would vote, which meant who would win. He asked the DC advocate, essentially, if the 2A couldn't be read as having two independent clauses, militia and arms, neither of which restricts the other.

The line for spectators stretched over two blocks, as I recall, and only those who'd been in line for 72 hours got in.

I was one of the last out, and I heard the Chief Justice say "don't worry, counsel, WE'RE still here!" I turned around and realized -- the courtroom had been absolutely packed with people, I don't know how many hundreds, and the next case up a humdrum one, so the entire room was clearing except for a Justices and maybe a dozen tourists in the back.

Let us hope David Codrea and Stephen Stamboulieh's persistence pays off.

Story here. None of the charges relate to his shooting of a robber, which the city accepts as justified. No, the charges are gun-law related. A judge set bail at $50,000.... because he felt there had been too many shootings.

Jones v. Hendrix. The petitioner was convicted in 2000 as a felon-in-possession. In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that proving that charge requires proof that the defendant knew he possessed a gun and knew of his status (i.e., that he'd been convicted of a felony).

After his 2000 conviction, he'd brought a §2255 habeas corpus petition. Now he wants to bring a second habeas petition, based on the Court's 2019 interpretation of the GCA. A majority rules he can't, due to a clause in the statute.

The Constitution says that the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of rebellion or invasion. The majority notes that at the time of the Framing, habeas relief was not available based on arguments that the court had mis-interpreted a statute, and so the statutory limit was constitutional.

(Note-- "The Solicitor General then noticed her intent to defend the Eighth Circuit's judgment but not its rationale. We appointed Morgan Ratner as amicus curiae to argue in support of the Eighth Circuit's reasoning. 597 U. S. ___ (2022). She has ably discharged her responsibilities.")

Abruquah v. State of Maryland, Maryland Supreme Court. It examines the details of linking firearms to fired bullets, and concludes that an expert may testify that bullet striations are consistent with it having been fired from a given gun, but cannot testify that the bullet came from the gun in question. There are a couple of strong dissents.