The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
SCOTUS has denied, without comment, all firearms cases before them.
I know Sebastian will comment more on this later, but I would just point out that rather than trying to rely on courts, this is a great reminder that we need to make improvements politically in 2014.
Now that gun rights supporters have shown interest, the USPS is now claiming that they haven’t made any final plans for the Charlton Heston stamp, and it only came out in the news because the WaPo supposedly reported from a leaked confidential document.
Except it’s a lie that the news was supposed to be kept secret. The USPS posted on their own website that the Heston stamp would be released this April, and that’s been up since January 14, according to a date at the bottom. The Hollywood Reporter, which reported the backtracking by USPS, also noted that this “confidential” claim is a little suspect since the USPS blogged about the stamp, providing the artwork sample, back on January 30.
The USPS is now saying they will take into account feedback from anti-gunners, even though the stamp is actually to recognize his epic Hollywood career, and may now opt to reject it before release.
In April, the USPS will release a stamp honoring former NRA president Charlton Heston. I initially found the news at Daily Caller, but they simply said the stamp would be released sometime in the year 2014. A look at the USPS website says that the release event is scheduled for a day to be determined in April.
If USPS is really interested in making some money, they would do it before the NRA meetings start on April 25 so that it’s a nifty little fact that stands a chance of getting mentioned to 70,000+ people who are more likely to have an interest in this particular actor.
Since it will be a standard First Class Forever stamp, it’s entirely possible that any mail sent in the next few years from our house may honor Mr. Heston. Think they’ll do a custom one of Charlton Heston in a Santa hat or holding some mistletoe for my Christmas cards? (h/t NYSRPA)
From a press release today:
Today, San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore notified the County Board of Supervisors of his intention not to seek en banc review in the matter Peruta, et.al v. County of San Diego. A copy of Sheriff Gore’s letter to the Board of Supervisors is below.Â
Members of the public wishing to obtain a CCW under the standards articulated by the Ninth Circuit should be aware that the decision has not yet become final. Federal court rules prescribe a period of time which must elapse before the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. Should the decision of the Ninth Circuit become final, the Sheriff’s Department will begin to issue CCWs in situations where the applicant has met all other lawful qualifications and has requested a CCW for purposes of self-defense.Â
Additionally, those seeking a CCW are advised that the process for obtaining a CCW involves several steps. The application process includes a scheduled interview, payment of fees, as well as state and local background checks. Successful completion of a firearms course of training is also required. This process can take several months.
The downside to this ruling is that this case won’t be going to the Supreme Court. Though it is circuit precedent, so future cases will have a chance to to bat and see if they want to swing for the fences. Will Hawaii just start issuing when challenged? Or will they appeal En Banc and all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary?
Orange County has loosened requirements for carrying concealed weapons in public following a pro-gun ruling last week by a federal appeals court, officials said Thursday.
So Orange County has now gone effectively shall-issue. How many other counties will follow? Hopefully, at the end of all this, even LA will have to capitulate.
I didn’t jump right on Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey’s bill, because any idiot Senator can introduce a bill. Introduction doesn’t mean it has any legs, or will get anywhere other than referred to committee to die a quiet death from utter neglect. Bob Owens took a look at the bill and notes that it would apply to all future handguns two years after the date of enactment. It’s actually worse than that. It would also require any gun sold, after three years, whether privately or from a dealer, to be a retrofitted smart gun, meaning there would be no grandfathering for current stock. All handguns would have to be retrofitted if with smart gun technology if you wanted to sell, offer for sale, trade, lease, transfer, ship your handgun. Markey might as well mandate we all use phasers, for all the science fiction going on with this bill.
To make matters worse, Markey’s bill would put all regulation in the hands of the notorious nanny state killjoys at the Consumer Products Safety Commission. They’d get to decide the “smart gun” standard. It guts the PLCAA, and allows the persons, states and the federal government to bring suit against gun manufacturers for “unsafe handguns.”
Though, one silver lining to Markey’s lunacy that it does not exempt law enforcement. He does exempt firearms owned by the department of Defense, but I notice he does not provide exemption for manufacturers to manufacture for the Department of Defense, nor exemption to sell non-compliant firearms to the DoD, but I suppose that was just his staffers having no clue how to write legislation. Or maybe not, it’s always hard to tell how much they live in their own world, and think the unicorns can just fart out new technology on command.
San Francisco prevails on magazine capacity. Our side is going to appeal in the case, but I think this is going to be a tough slog, and I fear we may lose in the end. Some of our academics, even the ones on our side that are very influential, preemptively surrendered on this issue (unwisely in my opinion), and magazines will end up being a difficult hole to dig out of if we can accomplish it at all.
Many people on the other side of this issue have argued that judges are in no position to decide things like how many rounds one does or doesn’t need for self-defense, or whether a certain firearm has features that ought or ought not to be protected. I actually agree with them on that argument. But our opponents then turn around and argue this is the reason to leave such things in the hands of legislatures, which is where I strongly disagree. That would render the Second Amendment meaningless as a right, which is I suppose their purpose in such an argument. There is another way.
The Heller “common use” language provides a means for taking such decisions out of the hands of judges and legislatures, and putting it with the people, where it belongs. If the people generally choose magazines with more than ten rounds for self-defense, or choose rifles with pistol grips and adjustable stocks, then those are protected arms. Period. Once it’s shown at trial that such magazines and rifles now represent a significant percentage of guns sold in the American marketplace, no further analysis need be required. It is apparent that magazines greater than ten rounds are overwhelmingly what the public is choosing to arm themselves with, so those are protected. End of analysis.
But common use is not the only mechanism by which we can save judges from having to make judgement calls. After all, it’s always possible a legislature can pass a ban on new technology before it ever gets to be in common use. This is where Professor Nelson’s Lund’s assertion that we must also look at police use comes in handy in relieving judges from having to engage in interest balancing. Any law that citizens are subject to that law enforcement agents are not should automatically make justices suspicious of legislative motives in passing such a restriction. A legislature can not ban an arm for supposedly only having criminal use, or overwhelmingly having a criminal use, or being dangerous and unusual, and then turn around and exempt police officers, claiming those officers need those very arms for their own defense. That goes double if those arms are actually in common police use, such as magazines holding more than ten rounds.
Judges don’t need to engage in interest balancing when deciding the Second Amendment. We already have several proposed mechanisms that would allow the right to be evaluated in a more objective and bright-line fashion. We may have to decide how broadly or narrowly we define “common use,” and how judges and legislatures can classify or sub-classify arms, but the pre-existing mechanisms provided by Heller and Professor Lund provide an inherently better, limiting mechanism that obviates the need for any interest-balancing approach required to decide what the magic number is in regards to how many rounds in a magazine are protected, and how many aren’t.
Though Virginia defeated a similar bill last week, word comes from Arizona that they are moving forward on a bill that would require the chief law enforcement officer to sign off on certifications from BATFE relating to firearms if the applicant is not prohibited from owning firearms or currently under any kind of investigation that could result in them being prohibited. If the CLEO denies it, they must notify the applicant in writing and spell out the reasons they are denying the certification.
Is it Thursday already? Time files when you’re enjoying the warm, tropical weather. My weather station outside says 48F, with 58% relative humidity. Well, hell, pour me a margarita and I’ll sit out on a beach chair and watch the snow melt. This the warmest it’s been in weeks. Hopefully it’ll do good work on the glaciation going on around my driveway and on the roof of the house. Now for some fun-in-the-sun news:
Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens would like to amend the Second Amendment to render it meaningless.
The State of New York thinks it’s worse to murder someone in a park than some other place. Gun control is a dishonest politicians hobby horse for avoiding blame for failing at one of the most basic functions of government. Funny how when government does too much it always screws up the basics.
Is the Bureau of Land Management in cahoots with anti-hunting HSUS?
Massachusetts is looking at deregulating pepper spray. Currently you have to have a Class B License to Carry in order to possess pepper spray. It’s not often you’ll hear me use “Massachusetts” and “deregulation” in the same sentence.
New national consensus on the right to carry. Sadly, many federal judges are still way behind the culture on this.
New York State abolishes trial by combat. What surprised me is that the date is 1786. I think we should bring it back, but only for politicians accused of crimes against the public.
South Carolina rejects Constitutional Carry. It’s difficult to pass, even in very gun friendly states, but if we can get a few more, the tide might start sweeping up other states.
The ACLU is standing behind the Second Amendment being a collective right. Fortunately, some of their state chapters are more progressive on the Second Amendment, and accept it as an individual right. I have actually been a member of the ACLU in the past, but never again until they accept the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Giffords and Kelly are planning to write a new book on gun control. Mark Kelly is, as always, eager to demonstrate he’s really one of us. Beware gun owners bearing gun control.
Why that .22 revolver isn’t all that cheap.
“Let me suggest that the real problem is that we have too many felons, because too many crimes have been designated as felonies. Traditionally, felonies were very serious crimes, for which the death penalty was common. The justification for loss of civil rights, like voting, was that though you were being allowed to live, your crime — rape, murder, etc. — was sufficiently serious that it separated you from civil society. That can’t be maintained where today’s rather promiscuous designation of felonies is concerned.” I look forward to reading some legal writing on this topic.
Gun sales are plunging! More like returning to (still higher than) normal levels, after Obama and the anti-gun folks sent everyone into a panic.
Did ATF provide adequate comment period for 41P?
Progress on suppressors. It has to be pushed in the states before there’s going to be support for it federally. It’ll be a long march back for a lot of Title II stuff.
“Gun Control Sent Me Packing.”
There’s a new study coming out that claims to prove that liberalizing gun laws causes crime. It’s coming to us from the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, which is funded by the Joyce Foundation and Mike Bloomberg. This type of study is called an interrupted time series analysis, which you try to analyze the effect of a certain policy by looking at conditions before and after. This is the same kind of analysis that was done by John Lott to support his thesis in “More Guns, Less Crime.” In this case, the local jurisdiction is Missouri, and the policy in question was the 2007 elimination of the permit to purchase handguns.
I can’t comment on the validity of the study, since it is not out yet, and even when it appears in the Journal of Urban Health, I doubt the public will have ready access to it, since we can’t have laypersons peeking into what the priesthood is doing now, can we? But I certainly hope skeptical people will tear it apart and find flaws. The study flies in the face of the very apparent fact that though gun ownership has been increasing, and the number of guns in private hands has been increasing, crime overall has dropped precipitously. How many jurisdictions did they have to study to find one where they could make the numbers support their fore drawn conclusion?
