Via SayUncle, who notes that NYC firearms instructors seem to be out of touch with the gun culture as much as the media is, “$2 PATH fare-beater had pistol loaded with cop-killer bullets, cops say.” New York City is so far gone that even the cops don’t understand ballistics or guns.
Category: Guns
More Wins for SAF & Alan Gura
A federal court in Massachusetts has struck down Massachusetts’ practice of denying pistol licenses to permanent resident aliens. I wonder whether our opponents have noticed while they’ve been busy exploiting another shooting, we’ve still been quietly winning victories. Is it just me, or does it seem like we’re having more success in District Court these days?
2 out of 3 of Brian Aitken Convictions Squashed
Eugene Volokh mentions the case. Aitken’s convictions for unlicensed transport, and high capacity magazines were reversed. His conviction for having hollow point ammunition was allowed to stand. There’s one crime Brian Aitken is guilty of, and that’s believing when he moved to New Jersey he was still living in America.
- On the charge of transportation without a permit, the court found that the judge’s failure to properly instruct the jury as to exceptions was sufficient to squash the conviction.
- On the charge of the high capacity magazine, the court ruled that the state failed to introduce proper evidence that the device was a large capacity magazine. At trial they showed that the magazine could hold 16 rounds of ammunition, but they failed to show that it was operable with that many rounds of ammunition, and the court ruled that was required.
- On the issue of hollow nosed ammunition, Aitken argued that the statute was unconstitutionally vague. He also argued that the rule of lenity should apply, given that the statute didn’t exempt moving between residences, that it should based on a reading of the statute, which allows possession in the home.
- Aitken also made a Second Amendment claim, which the court summarily dismissed without any discussion. This is wrong.
So Aitken is still a convicted felon and prohibited person, because of the hollow nose bullet charge. I think he should appeal, and appeal all the way to the US Supreme Court if necessary.
St. Louis, NRA Annual Meeting, and Guns
This comes up every year at the NRA meeting, whether or not the facility allows carry. It was fine in Pittsburgh last year, illegal in Charlotte, legal in Phoenix (except for events with alcohol), legal in Louisville, and before that was St. Louis, where it’s just not allowed by the venue. John Richardson has a handy guide to St. Louis, and where you can and can’t carry.
I will note again, that there are only a handful of cities that can host NRA Annual Meeting. It is a huge event that moves around the country so members, at some point, have an opportunity to attend. It is very difficult to find venues in every corner of the country that allow carry, and can also host an event of this size. But every year, there’s a handful of people the complain. The alternative is to limit NRAAM only to certain areas of the country where the venues allow it, denying opportunity for people around the St. Louis area to ever attend. NRA’s formula is a high-density of NRA members within a 500 mile radius, when choosing a host city, in order to maximize the number of members who get to attend. St. Louis set a record last time we were there (which was beaten by Charlotte).
I get that a lot of folks get angry when the venues don’t allow carry, and sure, there are venues in some other city where it could be allowed, but that could translate into a dramatic drop in attendance, during an election year. How do you think the media would spin that?
Marion Hammer on NPR
She declined an interview, so they played some past interviews. Says the Brady representative Brian Malte:
Marion Hammer and the NRA are the masterminds of a dangerous, paranoid mentality that got Trayvon Martin killed, the mentality that’s responsible for endangering all of our lives. It’s based on a lie that you need to be armed to the teeth anywhere you go.
Get that? Paranoid mentality. Looks like the Brady folks are adopting the CSGV technique of moving forward by demonizing gun owners. I predict this will ultimately prove to be no more successful than the moderate path under Helmke.
Bloomberg Going After Stand Your Ground
Not surprising he’d target it. One clarification on New York law. New York does have the common law duty to retreat from an affray, but under New York Law you’re permitted to use deadly force, with no duty to retreat, to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. Nonetheless, if Martin was on top of Zimmerman, duty to retreat doesn’t play into this case.
The Netherlands Outlaws IPSC By Ministry Fiat
From a poorly translated (by Google) release:
In the preamble of the agreement also outlines a number of measures that the Minister of Justice & Safety will take. The Minister has decided that the practice of disciplines in which a marksman moves and there is a continuous timekeeping as part of the scoring process and where the marksman in different positions, either behind obstacles on targets shoot, no longer permitted . The Minister thus refers in particular to the practice of dynamic disciplines Trail Shooting Rifle and Pistol, as regulated by the NPSA and the practice of Dynamic Service Rifle, as regulated by the APS.
The KNSA Board expressed its deep disappointment at this decision. The KNSA Board believes that, under strict conditions of security and exclusivity for participants in these disciplines, they are not prohibited would have to be. Prolonged and frequent consultation on the Minister has unfortunately not in other thoughts, and he announced a few things in regulation will capture. The board of the KNSA has finally filed to this decision and will take responsibility in this matter.
I could really use someone who speaks Dutch to translate this properly. Trail Shooting seems to be watch the dutch call IPSC stages. This basically outlaws any dynamic shooting that’s timed. I think it’s funny that in some European nations, that things can be made illegal just because a bureaucrat doesn’t like it.
Then again, it honestly isn’t much better here these days.
Hunting With Suppressors Legal in TX
UPDATE: Apparently a hunter suppressor law was just signed by Gov. Brewer in Arizona too.
Victory in North Carolina!
I think Glenn Reynolds picks out the operative quote from the opinion in Bateman v. Perdue. This was the case about North Carolina’s emergency powers provision. This was a case done by Grassroots North Carolina, with Alan Gura as the attorney. You can read the opinion here. I’ll read it myself in more detail when I have time.
On the Self-Defense Priesthood
Bill Quick over at Daily Pundit has been blogging for as long as I can remember. He’s a clear thinker, so when he offers a criticism, it’s something I take seriously, such as this:
OTOH, your personal approach gives you no standing to trash those who take a different approach. At least Sebastian is willing to admit he might have been a bit…ah…premature. Good on him!
If George Zimmerman were the only one on trial, I might be more forgiving of him taking a different approach. But anyone who holds a permit or straps on a firearm for self-defense is now on trial, as are the laws we’ve advocated to support that endeavor. Because of that, I think advocating smart practices in this area is important. Certainly I’m not going to come be anyone’s mommy, and follow them around to make sure they always do the smart thing, nor am I going to advocate laws that could punish someone for not adhering to best practices. But I am definitely going to advocate for those practices as others have advocated them to me.
Jeff Cooper’s advocacy of four simple rules for gun handling, which were spread by folks like gospel through advocacy, have reduced shooting accidents substantially over the past several decades. Shooting accidents are now a far weaker argument for the opponents of gun ownership now than they were in the 1970s, thanks to Cooper and a lot of evangelism for a culture of safety in the shooting sports. I believe in that kind of advocacy, and the Zimmerman case has been useful in pointing out mistakes he made and talking about smarter practices. I don’t think it’s so much a priesthood of self-defense, so much as the fact most of us realize we all have to be evangelists for what the community generally accepts as smart practices that will keep people out of trouble.
I think most of us understand that self-defense situations are not cut and dry, and real life situations are always a lot more complex than the classroom or shooting range. I think we’ve all been willing to give Zimmerman the benefit of doubt on his self-defense claim, even while simultaneously being critical of him for failing to practice avoidance.
The one conclusion I’ll admit was premature on my part was concluding his motivations for finding Matin suspicious were racial, and couldn’t have been objective. Now that more information is coming out that Martin may have been involved with drugs, if he was on drugs that night, that could have provided an objective basis for Zimmerman’s suspicion. But I stand by my assertion that this killing was unnecessary. Had Martin been approached by someone in uniform, it’s likely we never would have heard about this, and both Zimmerman and Martin could have their respective lives back. But whether it was unnecessary or not is a completely different matter than whether it’s legally self-defense. I’ve never been willing to convict Zimmerman on that count, and believe his claim is plausible based on the evidence we’ve seen in the public. But I don’t think it’s wrong or elitist to advocate for smart practices that are taught by most self-defense instructors around the country, especially when the consequences of not advocating good practices is that we all risk getting put on trial.