VPCBlog is demanding a retraction of some inaccuracies by the New York Times.
Year: 2008
Chicken Little
Anti-gun folks continue to pronounce that the sky is falling because of Heller. I have to admit, it’s fun to watch.
Al-Qaeda Plan C
Richard Fernandez links to an interesting article in The New York Post, describing Al-Qaeda’s Plan C:
In a notable departure from past al Qaeda strategy, Naji recommends “countless small operations†that render daily life unbearable, rather than a few spectacular attacks such as 9/11: The “infidel,†leaving his home every morning, should be unsure whether he’ll return in the evening. Naji recommends kidnappings, the holding of hostages, the use of women and children as human shields, exhibition killings to terrorize the enemy, suicide bombings and countless gestures that make normal life impossible for the “infidel†and Muslim collaborators.
Try this crap here, and we’ll get the 72 Virgins Dating Service doing a brisk business faster than you can say Allah Akbar.
30 Days
I have to agree with Countertop about the episode of 30 days that Bitter and I watched last night, where they sent a Brady Campaign member to live with a gun nut for a month. I thought it was presented very fairly, and factually, without a whole lot of distortion. The pro-gun guy was normal and reasonable, had a teenage son, and was generally presented as a fine upstanding citizen. I give the Brady chick a lot of credit for having an open mind, and I agree with Bitter that the members of CeaseFire from Toledo were the only real bitter ones in the whole episode. While I don’t think the Brady chick will be joining the NRA any time soon, I have little doubt she’ll never be able to look at the gun issue quite the same way again.
Congratulatings to the NJ Star Ledger
Reporter Fran Wood manages to write a good article about Heller that is not full of hysterics and inaccuracies. That’s more than I can say for The Chicago Tribune, the ACLU, and the Associated Press.
Unhinged over Heller
The ACLU says they disagree with the Supreme Court and continue to hold the Second Amendment is a collective right. I have to admit, I have at one time been a member of the ACLU, because I have often respected some of the work they have done. I will never give another dime to them because of this. Not another dime!
This country desperately needs a real civil liberties advocacy group.
Almost Prohibition Coming to Chicago
Daley seems to be suggesting Chicago will rework its laws, no doubt to make an incorporation case harder.
More on the San Francisco Case
Looks like it’s being filed as a Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 lawsuit, which is a federal civil rights statute that allows officials to be sued for deprivation of civil rights under the color of law. The case is Guy Montag Doe vs. San Francisco Housing Authority (CV-08-3112). You can see a copy of the complaint here. One of the attorneys in this case is Don Kates, who is a pioneer of Second Amendment rights. It names several defendants, including Mayor Gavin Newsom, as defendants. They are being sued in their official capacity.
This case would seem to be a test as to whether the Second Amendment is actionable under Section 1983. I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t be. No doubt the officials being sued are going to claim qualified immunity, using the theory that Heller is not clearly established law as applied to state and local government and officials. My understanding is that qualified immunity is often difficult to overcome in these kinds of suits, especially where there’s not well established case law. But I imagine the hope might be that The Courts might use existing case law and take notice that the second amendment is incorporated.
In the case of Duncan v. Louisiana, which incorporated the right to trial by jury, The Court laid out a guideline for whether a right would be considered applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. They stated:
The question has been asked whether a right is among those “‘fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions,'” whether it is “basic in our system of jurisprudence,” and whether it is “a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial.”
Given the broad ruling in Heller, it would be hard to see how the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms doesn’t pass the conditions spelled out in Duncan. Nontheless, there is no clear ruling that says the second amendment is incorporated. It will be interesting to see if the courts here simply take notice of its incorporation based on existing case law, or whether this will go to the Supreme Court. Considering Justice Scalia’s disdain for selective incorporation, this might be just the kind of case The Court is looking for. It’s very good that we’ll have a wide variety of cases proceeding upwards on this important question.
UPDATE: I asked Dave Hardy about qualified immunity claims in suits like this, and he indicated that when the 1983 suits merely asks for an injunction, qualified immunity isn’t at issue. That only comes into play when the plaintiff is seeking damages. In this case, they seem to only be asking for an injunction.
The Hysterics Continue
Via Bitter, who links to this fine bit of hysterics on the part of Dennis Herrera, the San Francisco City Attorney:
“In their apparent effort to maximize publicity for their pending challenges, the NRA lawyers’ hastily drafted complaint made glaring legal errors, and asserted facts that are not simply unsupported — but actually contradicted by evidence contained in their own exhibits,†Herrera said. “Their factually slipshod complaint makes plain that this case is a publicity stunt and a frivolous waste of judicial time and resources, which rules of court specifically prohibit. It is clear to me, and I believe it will be clear to the Court, that the NRA has improperly named the City in this action, and that this case is simply an effort to publicly harass their ideological foes.â€
One of the great pleasures of the Heller decision is watching all these people who have thumbed their noses at us for the past two decades become absolutely unhinged over the ruling. It’s better than any freak show.
A Study Opportunity
Gun control advocates are going to be studying the effects of the Heller decision on suicide rates in the District of Columbia. Fortunately, I think most people are capable of coming to the quite rational conclusion that guns do not cause people to decide to commit suicide.
Public-health researchers have concluded that in homes where guns are present, the likelihood that someone in the home will die from suicide or homicide is much greater.
Studies have also shown that homes in which a suicide occurred were three to five times more likely to have a gun present than households that did not experience a suicide, even after accounting for other risk factors.
But apparently journalists are not capable of this level of deductive reasoning. But here’s how they conclude it’s the guns:
More than 90 percent of suicide attempts using guns are successful, while the success rate for jumping from high places was 34 percent. The success rate for drug overdose was 2 percent, the brief said, citing studies.
“Other methods are not as lethal,” said Jon Vernick, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore.
My theory on this has long been, people who actually want to kill themselves choose effective tools. People who are crying out for help and attention choose less effective tools. There’s no fundamental reason jumping from a high place only has a 34% success rate. A plunge off the Golden Gate or a tall building or structure, is pretty much guaranteed to be 100% successful if you’re choosing your location based on actually wanting to die. In Japan, where guns are illegal, and which has a suicide rate much higher than the United States, throwing yourself in front of a high speed train is becoming quite the rage, and I would imagine has an effectiveness rate close to 100%.