Arms and the Law

It's the latest Pew survey. They started asking the question in 1993, when "gun control is more important" led by 57-34%. Its lead peaked in 1999, at 66-34%. Today "protecting gun rights is more important" leads, 52-46%. The big change started in 2007, and from 2010 onward the two were in a dead heat.

"Compared with last January, support for gun rights increased by 6 points among Republicans and Democrats, 7 points among independents, 8 points among whites and 10 points among African Americans."

An editorial from a Belize newspaper.

"The gun and ammunition laws were passed, our legislators said, to make it difficult for our gangs to obtain the guns and bullets they need to rob law-abiding citizens and to murder each other. These laws were first introduced about twenty years ago, and I think they have been amended once or twice. Today, all of us Belizeans know that these are laws which are abysmal failures, if we are to judge failure or success on the basis of the original intent of the laws.

What the guns laws have succeeded in doing is to intimidate and victimize innocent citizens who live in certain targeted neighborhoods. The laws are draconian, and they have contributed to the ever-growing sense in the Belizean people that we are not in control of our own destiny."
......
"The evidence is the weed law and the evidence is the gun law. These are not Belizean laws. These are oppressive laws. The PUDP are in bed with white supremacy. Power to the people."

NRA is behind evil plot to allow Michigan teens to have BB guns.

In Austin, a gunman begins firing into buildings. An policeman going off-duty stops him with a 110 yard one-handed pistol shot. The officer was with the mounted unit, and holding two horses' reins in his other hand; he scored a solid chest hit.

Here's their story on the military seeking a new handgun to replace the Beretta. A few problems:

The Beretta in the pic is appears to be a .32 pocket pistol.

It's illustrated with hollow point projectiles.

The story says the 1911 was first issued during the "war in the Philippines." I assume this refers to the Moro Rebellion: the main fighting there came in 1900-1902, and by 1911 things were pretty much still. .45s were issued during the Moro Rebellion, but they were revolvers.

It says that "guns chosen by the military achieve cult status, used as iconic weapons in James Bond and other action movies..." I can't recall that James Bond ever used a military weapon.

Cleveland PD officer fatally shoots a 12 year old who is holding an airsoft gun. Now it appears that Cleveland hired him after another PD asked for his resignation, based on his emotional instability on the firing range.

"During a training episode at a firing range, Loehmann was reported to be "distracted and weepy" and incommunicative. "His handgun performance was dismal," deputy chief Jim Polak of the Independence, Ohio, police department wrote in an internal memo."

The Ninth Circuit just ordered both sides to brief the petition for rehearing en banc, noting that "A judge of this Court having made a sua sponte call for a vote on whether this case should be reheard en banc..." (in legalese, "sua sponte" usually means for a court to do something without being asked to do so -- in this case, after the motion was denied. At issue are the motions by California and Brady Center to intervene and take over the case, seeking the rehearing en banc that the Sheriff did not seek.

In a separate ruling, the Court allowed Plaintiffs to file quite long (35 pages) briefs on the question.

Eugene Volokh has on the event. I think I can guess why the Court would want to consider Peruta, and not its companion cases. Peruta is cleaner case, and the other two decisions are decided essentially by referencing it. If the issue is going to be reconsidered, why not take Peruta rather than its progeny?

An argument against State preemption: it prevents cities from stopping dueling. I suppose that in Pottstown PA there are already letters out, asking the satisfaction due a gentleman.

I hope their seconds aren't foolish enough to arrange the "encounter" on Main Street. It's hard to aim a dueling pistol with traffic whizzing by on either side, and since the seconds are supposed to stand somewhat to the side, they'd be run down for sure.

Announcement here. Brian D. Aitken will discuss his book "The Blue Tent Sky: How the Left's War on Guns Cost Me My Son and My Freedom" at the Cato Institute. They'll also have the discussion online.

Hat tip to Alice Beard....

It's been widely assumed that telephone surveys of gun owners understate the real numbers, because some proportion of them are reluctant to disclose ownership to a stranger. I recently found two pieces of research on the question.

Arthur L. Kellerman, et al., Validating Survey Responses to Questions About Gun Ownership Among Owners of Registered Handguns, 131 J. OF EPIDEMOLOGY 1084 (1990)... yes, that Kellermann. They surveyed 35 households in Seattle and Memphis (I wasn't aware that either had registration) who had a handgun registered to them. 31 said that they did have a gun, 1 denied ever having had one, and 3 said they'd had one, but didn't now (which the study counts as a valid answer, but I'd classify it as fishy, at least). So 3% gave an incorrect answer and 9% gave a fishy one.

Ann C. Rafferty, et al., Validity of a Household Gun Question in a Telephone Survey, 110 PUBLIC HEALTH REPORTS 282 (1995). A larger sample (around 190) of households that have a registered handgun, or had a hunting license. 13% of the first and 10% of the second denied owning any type of gun.

These suggest that telephone surveys result in numbers that are significantly too low, as by an eighth to a tenth, even when the ownership is completely legal.

He drinks whiskey, enjoys cigars and is 108 years old.

Three background checks per second on Black Friday.

Story here. The three-judge panel rejected California's very late motion to intervene (and thus to appeal further when the defendant sheriff was disinclined to do so), so the State and Brady Center are asking the Ninth Circuit to hear the motion en banc.

BTW, in other circuits, en banc is en banc: if granted, all the judges of the circuit redecide the case. The 9th is so big that its en banc proceedings go to a panel of ten judges, chosen randomly, plus the chief judge.

Story here. It's the DoJ memos on how to manipulate the press.

"I've talked to NYT, NBC and NPR --gave them all this. NBC not likely to go. Still waiting on other two."

"No stories..From NYT, AP, Reuters, WaPo, NBC, Bloomberg ... I"m also calling Sharryl"s editor and reaching out to Scheiffer. She's out of control"

Reply: "Good. Her piece was really bad for AG. Why do you think nobody else wrote? Were they not fed the docs?...And I sent NJ's Susan Davis your way. She's writing on Issa/FandF and I said you could load her up on the leaks, etc."

The US District Court had enjoined application of the ten day waiting period to three classes of gun buyers (I forget them now, but seem to remember that the largest one was persons who already owned a firearm--and also those who have a current CCW license). California moved to stay this on appeal, and the District Judge denied the motion.

Some very nice language:

"Defendant‟s motion suggests that the public has an interest in preventing violence and keeping firearms out of the hands of those who have a propensity to commit violence. However, Defendant submitted no evidence that demonstrated that the 10-day waiting period will have that effect on the three as-applied classes to any appreciable degree, and all persons wishing to purchase a firearm will still have to pass the background check."

"Given the on-going constitutional violations that are occurring to the likely thousands of Californians by operation of the 10-day waiting period laws, the Court cannot conclude that the balance of equities tips sharply in Defendant‟s favor."

Story here. The battle in DC continues. Heller established that a ban on possession failed Second Amendment muster; this followup case secured the same ruling as to DC's absolute ban on carrying. DC responded by adopting essentially a strict "may issue" system, and now Alan Gura goes for that. Stay tuned...

Story here.

Sounds like the Justice Minister was overridden.

Hat tip to Joe Olson....

...by easing restrictions on gun ownership. Some folks have their heads screwed on straight.

It's a motion for preliminary injunction, i.e., to enjoin enforcement of the statute until trial or dispositive motions terminate the case. The statute in question forbids firearms dealers to display firearms, or advertising, any place where they are visible from outside the store. It thus forbids truthful and non-misleading commercial expression, and does so inside the person's own premises.

As I recall, that prohibition is in the Uniform Firearms Act of the 1920s and 1930s. The UFA was meant to head off laws like the Sullivan Act and this (and the requirement that firearms sold be "securely wrapped" before leaving the store) were probably meant as concessions to the antigunners. "At least you'll never have to see them."

I'd say they make me pull my hair out, but I have little to pull, and pull my beard out just doesn't have the ring. "Can a felon own a gun? 5 loopholes in Federal law".