Arms and the Law

Discussion here. At issue is a government attempt to block internet distribution of the computer files that enable printing of the guns, invoking ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations). The challenge is brought under the First and Second Amendments, and the Due Process Clause. Attorneys are Alan Gura and Prof. Josh Blackman.

"These guys showed up because they were offended by something protected by the First Amendment, and they were introduced to the Second Amendment."

Video here.

Ruling here. The city lost in the trial court, has moved to appeal, and asked the trial court to stay enforcement of its ruling pending the appeal. The judge denied the motion.

The Islamic radicals shot at the Mohammed drawing exhibit....

The police officer who shot them was just arrested by agents of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Division.

When he protesting the shootings were justifiable, they replied "It's not that. You were seen shooting over a baited field."

But the governor says he'll veto it.

In AZ, concealed carry was absolutely banned (no permits available) except for peace officers, until, oh, 10-20 years ago. Then we went straight to "shall issue." A few years they repealed the ban on permitless concealed carry, so even that went (tho you can still get a permit if you want it for reciprocity purposes). If either change had any effect on human behavior, I never noticed it.

It looks like Freddie Grey, the fellow who was mortally wounded while in police custody, was being arrested for possessing a knife banned under Maryland's arms laws. As they say, don't enact a criminal statute unless you are prepared to see someone killed in its enforcement (tho in most cases, not so intentionally as here).

But at least, you you can dial 911 for help. This might have a better result.

Tyler was the case on an "as applied" challenge to the ban on possession where a fellow had had a short mental commitment decades ago, and Michigan law did not incorporate the Federal route to getting that lifted. The panel opinion did use facial challenge logic to reason to its conclusion (as applied logic would be simply: there is no reason to deprive this guy of the right to arms for his entire life, because he is not dangerous, regardless of whether persons in that category in general are risky). The Sixth Circuit has take the case en banc.

Story here.

My favorite line: "The Brady Campaign declined Guns.com's request for comment about paying court costs and the dismissal."

If Brady pays it (they're the attorneys, and the award is assessed against their client, not themselves) that'd be about 10% of their assets, or 5% of their budget. If they don't ... they're gonna have some serious problems finding clients for future cases.

In the wake of Brady Campaign being handed its posterior in court, Sebastian notes that Brady no longer serves any purpose, even to the antigunners, and Bob Owens asks "Is the Brady Campaign done?".

Both good points. I just had one worry, though. There have been rumors that Bloomberg's groups have been in some conflict/rivalry with the older antigun groups, trying to encroach upon their space, as it were, in terms of PR and fundraising. Might this lead to Bloombergian hegemony? They may be astroturf, but they have the money to form mercenaries, and the other side has never worried much about real grassroots anyway.

Latest issue here. The firearms related articles are at the end of the issue. There's Steve Halbrook on the NY SAFE act, and Dave Kopel on the history of firearm magazines and restrictions on them.

H/T to Alice Beard....

Man begins shooting into a crowd, an Uber driver with a concealed carry permit shoots him down before he hits anyone.

1775: the Revolutionary War breaks out as General Gage sends a force to seize militia supplies, and the Americans resist.

1993: the final day of the Waco siege. FBI armored vehicles fill the Davidians' building with CS gas and methylene chloride, a fire breaks out, and over a hundred die.

1995: Timothy McVeigh sets off his bomb at Oklahoma City, killing 168.

2015: the Washington Post remembers one of the above.

The PA Gaming Control Board has been advised that its restrictions on firearms in casinos violates the State's pre-emption statute.

As a general rule, bringing a knife to a gunfight is unwise, but there are exceptions to every rule. It probably helped that the knife in question was a katana.

Interesting issue ... and here I'm referring to shotguns which were originally made with a rear pistol grip in place of a buttstock.

While at the meeting, I wandered over to the "Moms Demand" so-called demonstration. (It was over half a mile from the meeting, but since the object was publicity I suppose its location was unimportant to its organizers). It looked like a hundred people or so people were there (its organizer had predicted four hundred).

Best presentation I heard at the Firearms Law Seminar was that of Massad Ayoob. I'm a good and often tough judge of speaking, and he was simply first rate. He spoke on self-defense and the law of self-defense.

Some things are just impossible to believe. But then, who would have believed glass could be turned into flexible threads of great strength?

Story here.

David Codrea notes that, while J. Edgar Hoover happily received the first .357 Magnum made, he'd secretly tried to outlaw its development, on a "cop-killer bullet" sort of theory.