January 2010 – Page 10 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Shooting in Old City, Philadelphia

Looking at the video Fox provided, and based on the circumstances, it looks like it was multiple attackers. Lawful self-defense tends to be a very circumstantial thing, but based on what we see and have described here, this looks like self-defense to me. This guy needs to get a good lawyer, pronto.

I would also point out this is another reason to carry pepper spray. You want to have something between running and deadly force, and a defensive spray will put down your average drunk assholes who aren’t seriously committed to hurting you. Multiple attackers complicate things, and that’s the kind of situation it can be smart just to go straight to deadly force. But if you shoot someone who is unarmed, you’re going to end up having to answer in court, and that’s life-ruining expensive, as this guy is going to find out.

But based on the video, if I were on that jury, I’d acquit, unless there’s some other piece of evidence that demonstrates this wasn’t self-defense. Hopefully justice will prevail here.

UPDATE: On his docket sheet, looks like he’s being charged with carrying without a license, and carrying firearms on the streets of Philadelphia, even though he has a Virginia license which is valid in Pennsylvania. This is par for the course with Philadelphia. They will tend to pretend you don’t have a license until you prove it. His lawyer will get that charge thrown out, in all likelihood. Their hope will be that he pleads to one of the lesser charges, so he may learn his lesson that no one is permitted to defend themselves in the City of Philadelphia.

ANJRPC Challenges NJ Gun Rationing in Federal Court

I have to admit, I give the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Scott Bach, and Evan Nappen, a lot of credit for thinking this one up. Their Counsel, Daniel Schmutter, deserves credit as well for putting together such a solid case. It’s a novel legal argument, based on an obscure aspect of federal law, and it’s so deliciously clever it’s hard to believe it will work, but I think it has a good chance. This challenge to the one-gun-a-month law hinges on the definition of “firearm” in New Jersey Law. You can see the ANJRPC press release here on their web site:

The lawsuit is based on a federal statute that pre-empts state and local laws regulating the sale of certain firearms. The new law runs directly afoul of that statute because of the way New Jerseyâ€™s ultra-strict laws sweepingly define firearms. The suit also asserts claims based on the failure of the State Police to implement procedures under the new law, as well as the unlawful rationing of handgun permits by individual municipalities.

They also have a link to the Federal Complaint which you can find here. The legal basis for this federal complaint isÂ 15 U.S.C. Â§5001(g)(ii), which provides for federal preemption of laws regulating air guns, if you can believe that. Quoting:

(g) Preemption of State or local laws or ordinances; exceptions

The provisions of this section shall supersede any provision of State or local laws or ordinances which provide for markings or identification inconsistent with provisions of this section provided that noÂ State shall– . . .

(ii) prohibit the sale (other than prohibition the sale to minors) of traditional B-B, paint ball, or pellet firing air guns that expel a projectile through the force of air pressure.

The reason this matter is because New Jersey’s definition of a firearm includes air guns as well. From N.J.S 2C:39-1 (f), where the term firearm is defined:

It shall also include,Â without limitation, any firearm which is inÂ the nature of an air gun, spring gun orÂ pistol or other weapon of a similar natureÂ in which the propelling force is a spring,Â elastic band, carbon dioxide, compressed orÂ other gas or vapor, air or compressed air,Â or is ignited by compressed air, andÂ ejecting a bullet or missile smaller thanÂ three-eighths of an inch in diameter, withÂ sufficient force to injure a person.

Essentially the argument is, if someone buys an air gun, they are by statute then prohibited from purchasing another during that thirty day period, so it amounts, in practice to a prohibition of the sale of air guns. Now, the important thing here is the lawsuit is over one-gun-a-month. It is not over the definition of firearm under New Jersey law. Therefore we escape the problem of severability, where a judge could rule the air gun language in the definition is superseded by federal law, and thus moot, severing it from the definition, and leaving the rest stand. Because of the subject matter of the lawsuit, the judge may not consider the definition, and will be forced to consider only whether the one-gun-a-month law violates the federal preemption, which is pretty clearly does.

This would mean the legislature would have no choice but to try to pass one-gun-a-month again, though with an exception for air guns this time to get around federal law. Given that Dick Cody is out as President of the Senate, and Stephen Sweeney, who is friendly on the issue, is in, it doesn’t look good for re-passage. Even if it does, Corzine is out, and Chris Christie, who was not supportive of the rationing law, will now occupy the Governor’s mansion. So it doesn’t look good for the other side if this lawsuit prevails.

There are implications for Pennsylvania too, if this case wins, since Pennsylvania is also n the Third Circuit. Philadelphia currently bans sale and possession of air guns in violation of the same federal statute, so getting some favorable precedent in the Third Circuit on this issue will also help air gun shooters in Philadelphia, should anyone subsequently bring suit against the ordinance.

All in all, I think this is a brilliant lawsuit, and ANJRPC, and all those involved with bringing it, deserve a lot of credit for coming up with a novel legal argument against gun rationing that has a serious chance of winning. Ironically, it was New Jersey’s inclusion of air guns in with firearms that may be this law’s undoing. Let’s hope for a favorable outcome in this case.

No Pizza, No Peace

It appears as though Senator Ben Nelson needs to find a pizzeria that delivers from now until he retires.

A patron of an Omaha pizzeria says U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson was booed over his vote on health care reform as he was leaving the restaurant.

Tom Lewis says the Nebraska Democrat was on his way out of Dante Pizzeria Napoletana on Friday when someone mentioned his vote. Then, he told the Associated Press, a couple booed and the woman yelled “Get him the hell out of here.”

Martha’s Outreach

Yesterday, Instapundit said of Coakley’s campaign: “Theyâ€™re just flailing now, hoping that something will work.”

He’s so very right. Yesterday afternoon I missed a call on my cell phone, but I didn’t recognize the number anyway. When I googled it since there was no message left, various forums indicate that it was a robocall for Martha Coakley – possibly even a push poll.

Yes, I have a Massachusetts phone number. But keep in mind that I have not been on the voter rolls since early 2005. I went from voting in every election there to not voting at all. I have never ever received another Massachusetts political call since leaving the state. She must be really reaching far back to try and dig up every potentially sympathetic voter she could find – even if they live outside of Philly. (I was registered as Unenrolled, though I voted in the Democratic primaries.)

Inky Reporter Sensationalizes Gun Show

I guess they were looking for an interesting story, but I don’t think they found it, so they tried to sensationalize as best they could, regardless:

They began arriving well before the 9 a.m. Sunday opening, cramming the parking lots and forcing latecomers onto snowy fields. At least half the vehicles were pickups, peppered with road salt and bearing such bumper stickers as “Don’t blame me, I voted for McCain” and “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”

At least half the vehicles in that part of Pennsylvania, that time of year, in any given parking lot, are going to be pickups. I guess they missed the Honda CR-V, devoid of bumper stickers, that was driven by Bitter and I, because we were at this show looking for ammo for my Webley (found three boxes, old Canadian police surplus brand called “Dominion”, made by Canadian Industries Ltd.). My father moved recently about 15 minutes outside Lebanon, so we will probably attend this show somewhat regularly, as it’s a good show. Also funny, I maybe saw a handful of cars or trucks at most with bumper stickers on them.

Assault rifles were much in evidence. One table had an AR-15, originally made for the U.S. Army, for $875. A Russian-made AK-47, one of the most popular and widely used assault rifles in the world, was on sale for $495. There was a “Gun Show Special” on an SKS carbine for $165. An SKS was used in 2008 to kill a Philadelphia police officer.

Originally made for the US Army eh? Sorry, no. Russian made AK-47? Russian designed maybe. There are no Russian made AKs for sale the US. Importation of those has been banned since 1968.

Just across the aisle there was a $999 price tag on an FN Herstal Five-seveN tactical pistol. This weapon, also known as “the Cop Killer,” is believed to have been used is last year’s massacre at Fort Hood, Texas.

Off in a far corner, two long tables were arranged in an “L” shape to accommodate the show’s largest weapons. One was a Barrett 50, a .50-caliber sniper rifle with a five-foot barrel that is capable of taking out targets a mile away. It cost $8,995. Two subadolescent boys took turns aiming it at imaginary targets.

Sensationalize much? There’s no such thing as a “cop killer” gun. Armor piercing ability is a function of ammunition, not the gun its fired out of, and the ammunition that can pierce armor is unavailable to civilians. The barrel of the Barrett comes in 29 and 20 inches, last I checked that didn’t make 3 feet, let alone 5. The overall length of the rifle is not even five feet. But it’s not exactly the kind of rifle you pick up and aim if you’re a “subadolescent.” The thing weighs 30 pounds! But why bother with research when you can just describe the gun as being of such epic proportions. I’m surprised he didn’t mention its ability to take down satellites.

The biggest weapon, priced at $20,000, was a Bren MK 1, a light machine gun used by the British army in World War II and the Korean War. “It can fire up to 540 rounds per minute with an effective range of about 600 yards,” the sales clerk advised. “And it still works.”

This gun I did see. Still works, and not something you’re going to take home from the show. If you’re lucky, you might get through all the hoops you have to jump through in two months. I’m guessing the reporter either didn’t ask about that part, or chose to leave it out of the article. Describe the process one has to go through to get a machine gun, even after ponying up 20 large, it might not seem to scary to people.

The 4473 form is kept by the dealer for twenty years. ATF can request access to a 4473 from a dealer if a gun was used in a crime, or otherwise recovered by law enforcement. At least they reported you had to go through a background check, and didn’t mention the dreaded “gun show loophole” that lets you just waltz into a gun show and waltz out with any weapon imaginable, no questions asked.

The Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a coalition made up of more than 340 mayors from across the nation, says Pennsylvania has more than 200 gun shows every year, a total exceeded only by Texas. Indeed, gun shows are a leading tourist attraction in the Lebanon Valley, which is hosting three this year. Tourist promotion officials estimate that each gun show will draw 6,000 visitors and generate between $2.5 million and $3 million for area businesses.

I went out to the show, then had dinner with my dad and step mother at a local restaurant, so I would believe it’s a significant boon to the local community. It’s a pretty rural area. Mostly dairy farms.

It was here in 2008 that a 30-year-old mother made national headlines by toting a gun to her daughter’s soccer game. Last year the woman was shot and killed by her husband, who then took his own life.

This has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and it’s offensive to even bring this up. Man, I really can’t wait for the Inquirer to finally quit circling the bowl and head down into the sewers where it belongs.

Holsters: Not Just For Guns?

I was reminded of a topic I wanted to bring up by an e-mail from Jennifer, who’s husband is a custom holster maker. Most of us have gun holsters, and while I’ve gone through a few in my nearly decade of carrying, one thing I’ve noticed is that a good holster lasts a long time. I’ve banged it against door frames, crushed it sitting on it weird, and generally put them through a lot of stress and abuse, and they stand up to it.

My iPhone belt clips, on the other hand, all generally tend to be garbage. I go through one maybe every couple of months before something on it breaks. They are made of Â cheap plastic, and are otherwise generally flimsy. Holster makers are good at making things that stand up to abuse. Why not make a really quality set of holsters for smart phones? There are a few challenges that I see. A gun is easy because you have a convenient handle to draw it from and can apply reasonable force to break retention. A phone still need to be retained, but you need some way to be able to remove it easily. It might take a more ingenious retention mechanism than a firearm. Second the phone screen needs protection. Gun finishes get worn from repeated holstering and reholstering. A screen on an smart phone can’t take that kind of abuse, so you’d have to at least felt line the side the screen is facing.

Still, I think there’s business opportunity for holster makers to get into the smart phone market with a product that can really take abuse, which is none of the crap I’ve seen on the market currently. Maybe the reason is people won’t pay a premium for a quality smart phone holster, but I would if it would last, and it was functional in its role.

Best Reason of All to Vote Brown

Scott Brown’s opponent in the Massachusetts Senate race gets a Brady Campaign endorsement:

â€œThis race is a clear choice between a tough, law-and-order leader who wants to fight gun violence in Massachusetts and a state legislator who has, either wittingly or unwittingly, become a poster child for the â€˜guns everywhereâ€™ gun lobby,â€ said Helmke.Â â€œThe people of Massachusetts should be clear whatâ€™s going on here: The gun groups are coming into Massachusetts to help Scott Brown because they know Martha Coakley will stand up to their reckless agenda. They also know that if heâ€™s in their debt, Scott Brown will do their bidding.â€

â€œThe gun lobby already owns too many legislators in Washington D.C.,â€ Helmke said.

The fact that the other side even needs to fight for this seat at all is a victory in and of itself. Let’s work hard to make sure Paul has to lament yet another legislator we “own”.

Gun Show Bill – Where Gun Control Comes From

The Brady Campaign are engaged in a new media campaign to try to bring the number of sponsors of HR 2324, the bill that would severely reduce the number of gun shows in this country through onerous regulation, up to one hundred. The current number of Congressional Cosponsors is 82. That’s not a bill that’s going anywhere, really. One striking aspect of the sponsors and cosponsors is just how geographically concentrated they are. To show you, I made up a quick map:

View Sponsors and Cosponsors of HR2324 in a larger map
I took the sponsors and cosponsors of this bill, and dropped a pin on their district offices so you can get an idea of where they represent. You can see significant clustering. Fully 60% of the bill’s sponsors are located in just three states: California, New York and New Jersey. A full twenty nine US states do not have any members of their delegation sponsoring this bill. Of the twenty-one that do, eight of those states only have one rogue member of their delegation, and seven more only have two members of their delegation (Pennsylvania has two, Fattah (Philly) and Schwartz (Philly & Montco)). Illinois has five members, all in Chicago. Massachusetts has three, centered around Boston. Within California, support is concentrated around Los Angeles and San Francisco almost exclusively. Within New York, around New York City. Within New Jersey, it is almost exclusively confined to the populated areas near New York City and Central New Jersey.

This is not broad support. This is a few cities trying to impose their attitudes toward guns and gun ownership on the rest of the country. Eighty three sponsors and cosponsors are only nineteen percent of Congress, after all. So I agree with the Brady Campaign on this one. Call your Congress Critter. If he or she is on this list, tell he/she you want them off it, and if he/she is not on it, please ask them to oppose HR 2324.

Another Reason Dealers Shouldn’t Talk to Reporters

Now we have put the term “bling gun” into the vocabulary of reporters, namely the Washington Post. The article refers to the gold plated Desert Eagle that Gilbert Arenas was caught with in the Verizon Center in Washington D.C. That didn’t come from the reporter, it came from the owner of Atlantic Guns in Silver Springs. Nothing like associating legal gun purchases of legitimate collector pieces (a gold plated Desert Eagle is a wall piece, the kind you lock behind a nice piece a glass in a nice felt lined display case) with a term generally associated with people who have large sums of cash and few ways to convert them into legitimate, untraceable assets (gang members and drug dealers). That might lead the public to wonder what kind of people you’re selling guns to up there at Atlantic Guns. That might make them wonder about the legitimacy of the whole industry.

I’ve seen dealers represent the issue very well, but 9 times out of 10 a gun dealer talks to a reporter, they say something stupid. It’s really best if dealers, or really anyone not accustomed to dealing with them, take a policy of not taking to reporters. The few times I’ve been in that situation, I let Bitter deal with them (she’s a professional at this). Sometimes there are reporters looking to do a fair piece, most of the time they are looking for you to slip up so they can make gun owners look bad.

Concealed Carry Reciprocity Fixes Possible in Wyoming

I wasn’t aware there was a problem there. Only three times have I been pulled over or in a traffic incident that involved police while armed, and one of those was in Wyoming (found out they aren’t as mellow about speeding as Montana). Since Wyoming isn’t a state that requires you to inform law enforcement, I did not notify the officer I was carrying. Actually, the only time of the tree I informed was Texas, because it was the law, and that meant waiting for 20 minutes while the licenses were verified. Needless to say, I am not one who believes in informing law enforcement. I’m not going to shoot a cop. He or she isn’t going to get hurt by what they don’t know.