Arms and the Law

The University of North Texas suspends a law student, apparently because he owned guns. There was an anonymous claim that he had threatened someone, a claim that he clearly refuted (not just with witnesses that said he wasn't at the location, but by producing his cell phone's GPS data).

Dave Workman has the story. Not that that will sway anyone.

Jail escapee beats up guard, gets away, breaks into woman's house and approaches her bedroom. She drills him thru the head. Problem solved.

In Ass'n of N.J. Rifle and Pistol Clubs v. Attorney General.

The case is quite well laid-out for an anti-2A result, tho I course like the dissent better:

"Yet the majority treats the Second Amendment differently in two ways. First, it weighs the merits of the case to pick a tier of scrutiny. That puts the cart before the horse. For all other rights, we pick a tier of scrutiny based only on whether the law impairs the core right. The Second Amendment's core is the right to keep weapons for defending oneself and one's family in one's home. The majority agrees that this is the core. So whenever a law impairs that core right, we should apply strict scrutiny, period. That is the case here.

Second, though the majority purports to use intermediate scrutiny, it actually recreates the rational-basis test forbidden by Heller. It suggests that this record favors the government, but make no mistake--that is not what the District Court found. The majority repeatedly relies on evidence that the District Court did not rely on and expert testimony that the District Court said was "of little help." 2018 WL 4688345, at *8. It effectively flips the burden of proof onto the challengers...."

Has anyone suggested taking a hockey puck to a gunfight.

In my ten years in Washington, I became amazed at the inability of policy-makers to make policy. I have since become amazed at the inability of higher education to think.

Here's a story on the proposal. If they're proposing the tax in order to fund anti-violence agencies, we might ask why they don't tax violent offenders instead? Oh, I forgot, violent criminals are not the problem. The problem is peaceful gun owners. Having enacted just about every form of gun control known, the legislature must find something more to do.

Story here. The school was called upon to deal with nasty SOB who made no secret of his desire to kill people and shoot up a school. So they transferred him from a school for "special needs" students (I'd never through of homicidal compulsion as a special need, but at least it fit) into a standard, and large, school. Then they apparently ignored his continuing threats. After the shooting, they spent tens of thousands on PR advice, and stonewalled all attempts to investigate.

Graphic here. No one NEEDS them, after all.

From Randy Cassingham, who has an amusing blog and an equally amusing email list.

Discovery here.

From the Babylon Bee. Yes, an armed society is a polite society.

Story here, on FoxNews, which may be be only media outlet that covered it.

FBI reports that the nutzo "bomber's" bombs were made of PVC pipe filled with "what is known as energetic material," which is defined as "material that give off heat and energy through a reaction to heat, shock, or friction." Like sugar?

Captain's Journal has the details, including a link to where you can file your claim for a replacement trigger assembly.

Dave Workman notes that coming soon are the anniversary of enactment of GCA 68 and the anniversary of the Earp gang's lethal and selective enforcement of Tombstone's gun law.

David Codrea has some. I'd add--(1) the bombs don't appear to have detonating mechanisms. (2) They are very small, maybe 1" pipe. (3) They have six stamps for six ounces, when they'd weight at least twice that. (4) None of the stamps are cancelled. If they were hand-delivered, why the stamps?

Looks to me as if it's a clumsy attempt to fake letter bombs, while actually ensuring they were harmless. Which suggests a false flag move. The stamps are added it wouldn't seem like a letter bomb without postage attached.

Here's his article in Real Clear Politics. The FBI figures indicate only one mass slaying stopped by a concealed carry permit holder (to be fair they do include several others stopped by an armed citizen whose permit status is unknown). John discovered several cases they had overlooked, and asked why. Their answer was that they exclude cases where the killer had a grudge against a specific person, i.e., wasn't trying to kill random people. To which Lott responded that (1) in the case he points to, the killer also fired on random people and (2) their overall count of mass slayings includes several cases where the attacker had a specific grudge.

FBI's response was to pass the buck: the decision to count or not count a case is made by consensus among some unnamed committee.

"The Supreme Court Has a Chance to Enforce Heller," at National Review Online. Hat tip to Alice Beard....

In fact, 57% oppose and only 40% favor a ban on "semi-automatic guns, known as assault rifles." (I guess we can't expect pollsters to know much about guns).

Story here, a little over halfway down the post. Brady was trying to cash in on Beto O'Rourke's fundraising for his race against Ted Cruz. So they sent out a fundraiser looking quite like a campaign fundraiser for him, but when the recipient clicked on the button to "chip in $5," they were directed to Brady Campaign's PAC fundraising site.

Story here.