Cemetery’s Blog is a new entrant into the ‘sphere. He’s covering New Jersey issues. We ahve prescious few New Jersey based blogs, so if you’re interested in following happenings there, have a read.
Year: 2008
Local Park Bans in Pennsylvania
It appears that Hazle Township is digging in its heels on its ban in public parks, citing Minich v. Jefferson County (previous appeal here), and arguing that the township can prohibit guns in parks because it’s used by school children. These are fairly bogus arguments, but let’s look for a minute at their use of Minich.
Minich was brought against Jefferson County because the county had an ordinance that prohibited firearms in the court house, and subjected entrants to a security checkpoint The plantiffs refused the checkpoint search, and were denied entry. The Commonwealth Court dismissed the preemption claim because state law prohibits firearms in courthouses, and thus the applicable clause in our preemption law applied:
In other words, the County may not enact an ordinance which regulates firearm possession if the ordinance would make the otherwise lawful possession of a firearm unlawful.3 Thus, if the County’s ordinance pertains only to the unlawful possession of firearms, i.e., possession “prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth,†then section 6120(a) of the Crimes Code does not preempt the County’s ordinance.
The problem with Hazle Township’s reasoning is that guns are not prohibited in public parks in Pennsylvania. State Parks are off limits by virtue of DCNR regulations, not through state law. Hazle Township is on very shaky legal ground claiming preemption does not cover public parks. Especially given that the General Assembly has voted, overwhelmingly, for a measure to recind the DCNR’s ability to regulate firearms in State Parks. Even if The Commonwealth’s Courts accept that because DCNR claims the power to regulate firearms in state parks, that local governments may also claim that power, it’s an argument very likely to be ended when the Senate decides to take up HB 1845.
Blue Trail Opens Today
Blue Trail Range is opening the 100 yard firing line today, with approval from the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.
“We reached this conclusion as a result of our careful assessment of the many physical improvements that have been made to the 100-yard shooting area at Blue Trail and improvements in operating procedures that the management has committed to implement,†McCarthy said in a written statement issued late Wednesday.
“We were able to make this assessment with the assistance of our Environmental Conservation Police unit, which had several senior officers inspect the range and which has special law enforcement and military expertise in firearms and range safety,†she said.
This is good news. It would be a pity to lose this range because of one sleazy developer with a slick media game.
Questions to Ask
While Sacramento is gloating about their ammo sale tracking program:
Of the 74 people who purchased ammunition and were prohibited from having guns, 62 had felony convictions, 11 were second strikers and five were gang members, police said.
Some questions the media should be asking, but won’t:
- What is the nature of the offenses the 74 prohibited people were accused of, and how long ago were the convictions? There are a lot of people out there who plead to crap years ago, having no idea what they plead to were felonies. Many of these are not violent crimes.  Like swapping dash boards on a car without swapping VINs.
- What was the nature of the five gang members convictions, how were they determined to be gang members, and how long ago were the convictions?
- What does this program cost, and would public safety be better protected if the resources required to administer this program were spent on traditional policing, hiring more officers, and stepping up patrols of high crime areas. I mean, if you nailed a dozen violent felons in this total, what did it cost vs. traditional law enforcement?
- The police found 74 people, how many people in total were entered into the system? How many people were investigated who committed no crime?
These are obviously the kinds of laws the Brady’s find reasonable, but I go through thousands of rounds of ammunition a year. I have to buy in bulk, often in quantities that I can only find online. Take this state wide, it will destroy competitive shooters, many of whom are already giving up under the weight of high ammo prices. But don’t expect the Brady Campaign or others who push for these laws to give a crap about that. Ammunition control is even more ridiculous than gun control. Criminals go through precious little ammo, since they do not generally practice. Lawful shooters go through thousands, and top competitiors tens of thousands of rounds a year. It seems foolish to expend a lot of time, money, and police resources to catch a few dozen people who probably, in all honesty, aren’t a serious threat to public safety.
Olympic Shooter Babe of the Day
Jamie Beyerle. She took 4th in 10m Air Rifle. And Fifth in Women’s 3 Position 50m Rifle. And she’s a Pennsylvanian. Good show!
Sporting Purposes
Kim Rhode Silvers
Looks like Kim Rhode managed to give her competitors quite a run for their money in Women’s skeet:
Cainero, Rhode and Germany’s Christine Brinker were tied with 93 points each, an Olympic record, after the final round of the women’s skeet. The Italian won the shoot-off for gold in the rainy conditions, hitting both skeets while Rhode and Brinker hit 1-of-2.
Rhode then hit both targets in the second shoot-off to pick up silver and Brinker settled for third after connecting on just 1-of-2 skeets.
This marks the fourth Olympic medal for Rhode, who won gold in the double trap event in 1996 and 2004 and bronze in that category at the 2000 Sydney Games.
“I have a collection now. I have a gold, a silver and a bronze,” said Rhode.
We congratulate her. She has represented her country well.
UPDATE: Voolfie comments: “Kim Rhode just won the Silver Medal in Women’s Skeet. FOUR Olympiads, two different sports and nothing worse than a Bronze Medal, ever…2G; 1S; 1B. Simply amazing.” Indeed
This is once instance …
… where I agree with the ACLU. They are going after a police Chief in Arkansas who’s instituting a curfew:
“Now, if somebody wants to sue us, they have an option to sue, but I’m fairly certain that a judge will see it the way the way the citizens see it here,” Mayor James Valley said. “The citizens deserve peace, that some infringement on constitutional rights is OK, and we have not violated anything as far as the Constitution.”
I don’t know what constitution this guy reads, but it can’t be the same one I do. I think it’s high time The Supreme Court ruled definitively on Curfew laws. This might be an excellent case.
Circular Reasoning
Looks like Wayne Fincher appealed his case based on Heller, and lost, based on the reasoning that machine guns, which are banned, aren’t in common use, which makes their being banned constitutional.
Lots of back and forth in the comments about the absurdity of the ruling. I agree with folks that the “common use” test proffered by Heller is insufficient, but I think a way around it, without having to blatantly overrule it, is to suggest that one must look at police use, when determining whether an arm in question is protected. If an arm in question is of a type that is part of the ordinary equipment of police work, it must necessarily be protected by the second amendment. Of course, this doesn’t necessarily get you machine guns, as I’m not certain whether machine guns are common police equipment. But it does get you out of the trap where the government could prohibit or frustrate commerce in new arms technology before it becomes “common” and then not worry. If it’s a useful instrument for self-defense, police departments will probably pick it up, and it will become common. Note that I don’t think you have to show that every patrol car has one, just that it’s not unusual, or unheard of.
Milkin’ It
The Brady’s have been milking the NRA spy scandal for all its worth. Not really unexpected, but for all the hoopla, it doesn’t seem to be generating all that much public interest or outrage.