Arms and the Law

Right here. She is a CCW holder whose husband was murdered because she (being law abiding) had to leave her gun in a car before going into a "gun free" zone.

For tomorrow's hearing. It's remarkable for saying almost nothing. And for being delivered by the Deputy Director rather than the Director.

An excellent article.

""Stand your ground" is not a principle that endorses vigilantism, the quest to enforce the law unilaterally, but instead a principle that declares that public spaces do not belong to violent aggressors. This represents not the abrogation of law but rather the use of law to more justly determine the rights of aggressor and victim, granting greater rights to the victim and thus bringing the statutory law closer in line with natural law. When the state, by contrast, mandates that citizens retreat from aggression (a concept fraught with practical difficulties and dangers), then it does not limit violence, it instead empowers unlawful aggression.
. . . . . .
The Left has to change the subject to vigilantism because the case for self-defense is so manifestly obvious. Is the state respecting the fundamental rights of citizens -- including their right to life -- if it mandates passivity in the face of violent attack? Of course not. It does, however, respect the right to life when it empowers self-defense while also prosecuting those rare few who seek to mask murderous intent behind a self-defense pretext."

I don't care how thick the person's skull was, I don't see how this could have happned.

Note here. The cases are Lane v. Holder, NRA v. ATF, and NRA v. McCraw.

No way to know the reason(s), of course. All we know is that no case got four votes to grant the writ. Perhaps they don't want to take on a "bear arms" case, or at least just now, perhaps they want away from the 2A for a time, perhaps their docket was full of higher-priority cases, or perhaps these just weren't the cases they wanted (or, most likely, it was a combination of these).

Right here.

"As of today Ukrainian Gun Owners Association will start to work on the preparation of amendments to the Constitution, which will provide an unconditional right for Ukrainian citizens to bear arms.
People should have the right to bear arms, which will be put in written into the Constitution.

Authorities should not and will not be stronger than its people!"

Hat tip to Prof. Joe Olson.

Is Charleton Heston.

I still have some "My President is Charleton Heston" bumper stickers, issued during the Clinton presidency.

It's on Tuesday, Feb. 25, 9PM EST, on Investigation Discovery TV. She has a book out, Denied A Chance: How Gun Control Helped a Stalker Murder my Husband which tells her story. She had a CCW permit, but she and her husband dined in a restaurant that served alcohol, a "gun free zone" in their State. She left her gun in the car ... and her husband was murdered while they dined.

Story in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel -- which I won't link because of a particularly annoying and hard to get rid of pop-up ad -- says that House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations will hold hearings on Feb. 27. Justice's Office of Inspector General is also investigating. Targets are four storefront sting operations, one in Milwaukee. In that one BATF lured a mentally retarded young man in, then charged him, they trashed the premises they'd rented, and lost three guns, one a full auto, which have never been recovered.

Story here. Further proof that being pro-gun is not always the same as being conservative!

A Federal Court of Claims judge calls the government's conduct "disturbing" and "wrenching". There are other reports that the judge said it was the worst case he'd seen in all his years on the bench.

Agent Jay Dobyns spent years infiltrating the Hell's Angels, until his cover was blown and he started getting death threats from folks whose threats mean something. He'd fallen into disfavor, and BATF did nothing. An arson attack burned his home ... and the agency tried to frame him for it. The trial revealed an email where one supervisor emailed another about hiding information from higher level management, and assured the other that "I can hide the ball with the best of them."

It's posted at the Volokh Conspiracy, which is now one of the Washington Post blogs (a wonder in itself!)

Basically, in 1986:

Under 10% of the US population lived in "shall issue" States.
About 33% lived in States that had no CCW permit process at all.
The remaining 57% lived in "may issue" States.
Only residents of Vermont could carry concealed without a permit.

As of today:

66% of the population lives in "shall issue" States.
No States have no CCW permit system at all.
27% live in "may issue" States.
7% live in States where you can carry concealed without a permit.

(And if the effect of the Peruta ruling is to make "shall issue" the rule in California and Hawaii, the percent in "may issue" will fall to 14%, and "shall issue" will rise to 79%).

Never mind the inconsistency with all its other positions, and despite two Supreme Court rulings to the contrary, ACLU still refuses to read the Second Amendment as reflecting an individual right.

It's drawn over 1,300 comments, mostly in opposition, and some amusing. ("How does an ACLU lawyer count to ten? 1, 3, 4, 5...")

Years back, Glenn Reynolds and Don Kates published a "thought experiment" on the Second Amendment. What if we assume the "collective right" approach is true, that the amendment was meant only to ensure that States could have militias to resist the Federal government? OK, so any State can create an organized militia free of Federal control. And arm it sufficiently to where it could resist the national military. Any person who joined such a militia has an unfettered right to full autos, artillery, military aircraft. Perhaps even nukes -- the Feds have them. I wonder how ACLU would regard the logical outcome of its position?

The county has 14 calendar days from the date of the ruling to move for rehearing en banc. If the county fails to move, any judge of the court, of their own volition, move for such rehearing within 21 days of the ruling. This seems to fit the grounds for such a motion, in particular conflict with other circuits and an issue of pressing national importance. A majority of the court can vote to grant.

En banc: normally, ruling are handed down by 3-judge panels. En banc in all other circuits means that all of the judges of the court take part and vote, after rehearing the matter. The 9th is so large, however (27 active-duty judges) that it has adopted a special rule. Ten judges are chosen at random, plus the chief judge (Alex Kosinski, a supporter of the 2A). For whatever it's worth, the 27 active-duty judges divide into 18 Democratic appointments and 9 Republican ones.

To complicate things, the Circuit can also vote to have a true en banc, with all 27 judges participating.

Once the en banc panel is chosen, it votes on whether to have additional briefing or argument. They almost always for for additional argument, I don't know about briefing.

If the en banc court reverses the panel ruling here, it'd make a really nice case for the Supreme Court (and maybe even if it upholds it). Big circuit split -

Opinion here!!!!

California's handgun carry permit system says a permit may issue for "good cause," with a definition that is essentially "some special and exceptional reason beyond the average person's carrying for self-defense." The Circuit panel holds that a constitutional right cannot be so arbitrarily restricted. It's the first time a Circuit has accepted that (to my mind, very strong) argument. The opinion also accepts that the right to arms extends outside the home.

Hurrah!

Hat tip to reader Gene Hoffman, of Calguns Foundation.

Former New Orleans mayor, and member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns Ray Nagin has been convicted of 20 counts of conspiracy, accepting bribes, wire fraud, laundering money and filing false tax returns.

McGruff the Crime Dog gets sentenced to 16 years for drug and arms offenses. What next -- Smokey the Bear starts a forest fire while smoking crack?

At 5:40 PM EST I'll be on the Teri O'Brien Show, discussing the Second Amendment and the decision of major gun makers to abandon the California market.

Story here. Be careful what you wish for, because you may get it. Via Instapundit.

From The American Thinker: "Gun Control: a War, Not a Conversation". I've been writing an article on this theme.....