Arms and the Law

Richard Zahn, retired master gunnie sergeant, sentenced to 364 days in jail. His offense: showing his guns to a man who threatened him.

It spends it on full-time staff who drive drunk senators home.

That's the court-created defense (nowhere to be found in statute or constitution) which consists of -- a governmental actor cannot be civilly sued unless his conduct was "clearly established" as unconstitutional at the time he acted.

From their "ask the police" page-- what self defense products can I legally buy?

The short answer is, none. A "rape alarm" is legal, but hardly a defense. Any maybe a dye spray to mark the offender, but no pepper in it, and even so don't aim for his eyes, that would make it an illegal weapon.

Prof. Joyce Malcolm has them, together with commentary on Vermont's changing politics, over at Jurist.

The judge believes in moving quickly. He just issue an order that denies DC's motion for an immediate stay (even before Alan Gura filed his opposition to it), sets expedited briefing for a stay on appeal (which is a different sort of stay), and orders oral argument for July 7.

No order on the contempt motion yet, but DC has filed an opposition (which for some reason I can't link in) claiming that it made a mistake when it turned down an applicant for a concealed carry license and that the license will be issued upon her completing the training requirement.

Hat tip to Alice Beard, and to Gene Hoffman of CalGuns Foundation.

Consource, that remarkable online collection of constitutional history, is having a tenth anniversary fundraising event. If you want to know what they are about, just click on the "library" link at the top of their page.

It's the case that struck down DC's "may issue" permitting system. Now, SAF has moved to hold DC in contempt for not following the ruling, and DC has moved for a stay pending appeal. I think the contempt motion had the desired effect of goading DC into action.

The Supreme Court has relisted the petition for cert. four times. That is, it's been scheduled for a vote on whether to take the case, and then rescheduled for a later vote, four times over. I've seen that happen once on cases (maybe the Justices wanted more time to mull it over, maybe they judge couldn't get to it in time) but never this many.

Here's the ruling from which cert. was applied for. It's a denial of a preliminary injunction, where the Ninth Circuit found the plaintiffs were not "likely" to win the case in the end, and not a final ruling in the case.

I finally found them. He said: if in self defense, you drew your gun, call 911 ASAP. He strongly rejected the advice of some people never to call the police. Police see the world in terms of good guy vs. bad guy. By calling them first, you become the good guy. If you don't, odds are the bad guy will call first and invent a story in which you menaced him with no reason. And never flee the scene! Then you'll be regarded as clearly the bad guy.

The Washington Times breaks the story: in the beginning of the Clinton Administration, Jodi Powell sent George Sthanopoulos a memo saying Clinton should abandon gun control, since the NRA was right, it doesn't work. I may pat myself on the back, since readers of this blog knew that back in 2012.

Wrenn v. DC, opinion here. It's a preliminary injunction, blocking enforcement of that requirement until the case can be heard and ruled on in a final judgment. Still, the court concludes that plaintiffs have established the element that consists of proof they are likely to win when it does come to trial.

Hat tip to the Firearms Policy Coalition.

Opinion here. The issue was whether a person convicted of a felony, who had previously turned in their guns, can after conviction sell or transfer their guns to someone not barred from possessing them.

The government argued that the ability to control an item is a part of possessing it, and the law forbids a felon to possess a firearm. The Court didn't buy that, as in 9-0 didn't buy that.

I thought the government's argument so weak that I wondered that they wasted time with it. Most gun control statutes regulate "possession." Under the government's position, any time a gun owner entered, say, DC or New York, he became guilty of an offense even if all his firearms were left back home. He still controlled them, could call back home and ask his family members to move them around or to sell them, and therefore "possessed" unregistered firearms in DC or New York. Ownership and possession may be related, but they are still distinct.

How to take over a small country in ten easy steps.

Useful tips like: The locals know how to shoot an AK, but not how to shoot accurately or safely. Expect to lose 10% of your force in basic marksmanship training. To arm them, find a UN peacekeeping force that is collecting arms, and offer them some cash to under-report their collections by a few tons and turn it over to you.

Northrup v. City of Toledo Police Dep't, decided today. Plaintiff was open carrying in Toledo, walking with his daughter, grandson, and dog. Somebody complained to police (tho open carry is legal, and he had a CCW permit as well). The officer responded and before it was over had him in handcuffs. The only charge was dismissed before trial, and now he sues under §1983. The trial court dismissed his Second Amendment claim, allowing his Fourth Amendment one to go forward. The Sixth Circuit reversed that dismissal. I gather that on appeal the PD raised claims of "qualified immunity" (the court-created exception to liability where a reasonable officer would not have known his conduct was unconstitutional), and most of the ruling centers on that. The court finds that there was no reason to believe he was engaged in illegality, that the officer at most had the power to ask a few questions, but no power to arrest or even detain.

America's oldest living veteran swears by them. At age 109, he must know something about the secrets to a long life.

The Crime Prevention Research Center has a list.

In Oklahoma City. Officer chases down a burglar, burglar gets the upper hand and is bashing him over the head with his riot baton, armed citizen draws and makes it clear he is prepared to fire, officer lives.

The article suggests that it's the best way to deal with the risks, far better than enacting meaningless firearms restriction.

Bob Owens has a heck of an analysis. Looks like the officer killed one and wounded one in the initial exchange, advancing toward them, and then finished the wounded one as the terrorist grabbed at a backpack.