Guns – Page 324 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Fifth Circuit Upholds 18-20 Year Old Gun Purchase Ban

NRA v. BATF. There is an impression that the Fifth Circuit is pro-gun, because it was the first to rule that the Second Amendment is an individual right. But it’s also worth noting that they upheld the PFA restrictions even though they offer the barest of due process protections. I will have more analysis of the opinion later, when I have time to read it.

UPDATE: Just giving a quick skim, it’s the same sad story. “We are very uncomfortable with this right, so we will go ahead and apply a low level of scrutiny to this which we will call intermediate, which, of course, is just perfect for upholding this statute.” The decision quotes heavily from Saul Cornell, the Joyce Funded scholar who attempted to undo the Standard Model of the Second Amendment.

UPDATE: Some discussion over at Volokh in the comments.

Borrowing Concepts from Abortion Rights to Save Gun Rights

Professor Johnson has a post up speaking of borrowing the “undue burden” concept from abortion rights in order to protect Second Amendment rights, much, I’m sure, to the horror of Justice Breyer if he were to read it.

Drawing a Blank on the Bill of Rights

I doubt most Americans could name you which of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights protect which rights, but most Americans aren’t members of Congress:

“I’m drawing a blank on the Second Amendment, but I think it’s the weapons, isn’t it? The NRA?” he said, according toÂ The Monitor.

If I ever get to establish Sebastianland, the first rule for holding office in Sebastianland will be to name each of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights and tell me what right they protect. I think that should be basic, required knowledge for being a member of Congress. How can I expect a person to uphold their oath of office if they don’t even know the document?

I sometimes think the biggest flaw in the Constitution is that we didn’t have more provisions to try to keep morons from holding public office. If you had to devise a constitutional system that filtered for morons, how would you do it?

h/t to Cam Edwards of Cam & Company

Domestic Murders

Apparently CSGV doesn’t care about an uncomfortably large number of domestic murders. Â You’ll often hear from the other side that their cause is reducing gun violence, and not other forms of violence.Â I get that people can pick their cause, and I don’t really think there’s anything wrong with that. But I also tend to think, translating this into another context, it would be like an organization dedicated to reducing drunk driving fatalities by trying to regulate Fords, and not concerning itself with regulating Hondas, Toyotas, or Chryslers. Sure, it’s legit, but it’s odd, and it would make me question whether the organization in question was really just out to get Ford.

Jihadist Gunwalking?

Clayton points to an article in the Washington Times that suggests the Obama Administration was walking guns to the jihadists. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Of course, I thought the same thing about walking guns to Mexico, and that turned out to be actually happening.

Oral Arguments in the Woollard Case

This is the challenge to Maryland’s restrictive carry laws, that won in District Court, and are on appeal to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.Oral arguments happened yesterday. We do not yet have full oral argument audio or transcript, but press accounts can found atÂ the Baltimore Sun.

Fortune Sued

You probably all remember the Eban article that appeared in Fortune Magazine a while back. Rank apologia if I ever saw it. Dave Hardy is reporting that Fortune is now facing a lawsuit by one of the whistleblowers for publishing a known falsehood. These kinds of cases are difficult to win, but as Dave notes, Fortune may be in trouble here.

A New 2A Blog

Before I get too hard on Fordham University, it is the school where Nick Johnson teaches, who e-mailed yesterday to mention he’s started blogging. The more the merrier. He also has aÂ Federalist Society faculty podcast out on the, very first of its kind, textbook on Second Amendment law, which Professor Johnson co-authored along with Professors Dave Kopel, George Mocsary, and Michael O’Shea.

Where is the Debate? It’s Here.

The Fordham University newspaper is very concerned about the crushing of debate by the evil NRA:

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is determined to squash public discourse on the issue of gun control. The NRA opposes even reasonable measures to curb the explosion of gun violence in America. There is no reason, as far as we can tell, that any citizen should need an AK-47. With atrocities such as the massacre in Aurora,Â Colo. (which involved the use of an assault weapon), the Sikh temple shooting in Wisconsin and the shooting of U.S. Congresswoman GabrielleÂ Giffords, we need to reevaluate the basis for easy accessibility of assault weapons.

No, we had a debate, and your side lost. This might be a shock to college students in New York City, but the rest of the country is nothing like New York City. There is also no crushing of debate. Debate would actually make gun blogging interesting again. But when we start to debate, our opponents immediately descend into insults, ad hominem and penis jokes. That’s the “your side losing” part. If you want a serious intellectual discussion of the topic, we’re happy to have one. But first you better be prepared, and if there’s one thing I’ve learned from folks on the other side of this issue, is preparedness for serious debate is not their strong suit.

Can You be a Menace on Your Own Property?

That’s part of the question in an Alabama case that the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund is getting involved with down there. It’s definitely an interesting case based on the details provided in this news account.

A developer/landlord was convicted of misdemeanor menacing after he was merely holding his shotgun (not pointing it, from the description in the article) on his property while ordering a former tenant who owed millions in back rent off site. The former tenant was removing hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of items from the property that the landlord said were considered part of the property until the back rent was paid – items like sinks, stoves, and booths that might, depending on the nature of the contract, actually be considered part of the building. In other words, the tenant wasn’t on site to grab his coat or family pictures that he left behind. He was ordered from the property, and the police were called.

The police officers at the time didn’t feel like the developer was committing any crimes in how he handled himself with the trespassing tenant. However, the trespasser filed charges later. So now there’s a question over whether or not Alabama residents may legally possess a firearm on their own property while ordering a trespasser to leave.