The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
I would call it gun porn, except said hottie is all dressed up. And here’s a close up.
UPDATE: I would like everyone to note the author on the above post. I have not become a switch hitter, or started to bat for the other team :) -Sebastian
UPDATE: I would like everyone to note that Sebastian just took the fun out of this post. :( -Bitter
As SayUncle is reporting, an executive at Smith & Wesson is facing a federal indictment, along with 22 others. I wouldn’t toss the suggestion that this could be politically motivated lightly, but what has my suspicious is what they are charged under:
The indictments charged the individuals, including Smith & Wesson vice president for sales Amaro Goncalves, with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and conspiracy to commit money laundering involving the sale of items including guns and body armor, among other things.
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act essentially makes it a crime to bribe foreign officials. My understanding from people involved in international business, is that bribery of foreign officials is pretty much par for the course if you want to do business in certain countries, like China, Russia, or most of the third world. That would lead me to believe that Smith & Wesson is hardly alone if some of their business practices involve bribing foreign officials. You can’t really do business in many places of the world without paying bribes.
Maybe I’m off base here, and prosecutions under the FCPA are a lot more common than I thought, which would mean this isn’t a case of selective prosecution at all. But it’s hard for me to believe this isn’t a commonly flouted law, which would cause me to wonder what, in particular, motivated the feds to bring charges in this case.
UPDATE: More info here, courtesy of The Firearms Blog. The arrests were made at SHOT? Not politically motivated at all! No, sir. It would appear to be that revenge may be at least a partial motivator, though:
As part of the FBI sting operation, an unidentified business associate who was a former executive for an arms manufacturer arranged a meeting between the arms sales representatives and undercover FBI agents who posed as representatives of an African country’s minister of defense.
And evidence this type of operation is indeed unusual:
Breuer said the investigation was the largest action ever undertaken by the Justice Department against individuals in an FCPA case. He also said it marked the department’s first large-scale use of undercover techniques in an FCPA investigation.
“We’re steadily pushing this unacceptable practice out of the business playbook by prosecuting companies and individuals who ignore the law, as well as by working with our international counterparts in their efforts to prevent and prosecute foreign bribery,” Breuer said.
He said the Justice Department currently has 140 open FCPA investigations. Kevin Perkins, assistant director of the FBI’s criminal investigative division, said 20 agents were working on FCPA cases full time.
I wonder if this was a way to go after the firearms industry in a way that we couldn’t rightly complain, because they are breaking the law, after all. Unfortunately just about everyone is a federal criminal these days. Perhaps this marks the feds cracking down on this practice in general. I’m sure it will do wonders for the economy and job creation if our corporations are unable to do business in large chunks of the globe because the feds won’t let them pay bribes.
I may be skeptical of open carry’s effectiveness as a public relations strategy, but I do support it being legal. But I find this bill in Utah to be rather odd, because it was my understanding that you could legally carry openly under Utah law with a Utah permit. This doesn’t seem to outright legalize open carry, as you would still appear to need a permit by language. Here’s what it does:
(1) An individual who is not prohibited from doing so by federal or Utah state law
(a) openly carry a firearm; and
(b) communicate to another person the fact that the individual has a firearm.
(2) If an individual who is carrying a firearm reasonably believes that the individual or another person is threatened with bodily harm, the individual may warn or threaten the use of force, including deadly force against the aggressor, including drawing or exhibiting the firearm.
It could be that the law is clarifying open carry is legal because of some practices by law enforcement in Utah. That’s entirely possible, in which case subsection 1(a) of this bill is worthy of support. I’m a little troubled by subsection two, however. I’m assuming here that Utah law is similar to other states, in that you have to be in reasonable fear of grave bodily injury or death in order to resort to deadly force. Utah, being a Western state, probably has no duty to retreat, but the standard for deadly force would still be that. Now the legislature wishes to create a situation where you can threaten, but not use deadly force. To me you’re either justified bringing deadly force into the encounter or you aren’t. What if you threaten, and then the guy charges you, like we saw here? Maybe your defense attorney can argue that once the guy charged you, the standard changed, and you were in fear of grave bodily injury or harm. But the law is often that if you create the circumstances by which you had to use deadly force, you can’t claim self-defense. It seems to me that if you’re going to introduce deadly force into a situation as a threat you should also be justified in using deadly force. I think if this passes, it’s going to get good people in trouble. Maybe I’m misunderstanding how self-defense works in Utah, but it seems to be they should sever the brandishing aspect of this bill and just push the clarification on open carry.
It’s been a while since we’ve had content for the How Not to Win category here, and yet it seems we could fill it every day by featuring Martha Coakley’s Gaffe-of-the-Day antics.
We warn all the time about the trouble in dealing with the media if you haven’t prepared for it. Â Martha Coakley’s volunteers should probably remember that next time they encounter a reporter with the video camera already turned on.
Things we can learn:
The Shooting Hunting Outdoor Tradeshow (SHOT) Â is underway this week. If you’re looking for coverage, I’d suggest popping over to The Firearms Blog (who is there) or SayUncle, and just keep scrolling. Maybe it’s the bad economic times, but I’m just not as excited about all the new gear this year. Everything I’ve bought recently has been under 300 dollars, and used.
Eugene Volokh examines a suggestion for protecting expensive camera equipment: put a starter pistol in the case so it’s declared as a firearm, that way it’s less likely to be lost. The declaration tag goes in the case, so it’s not apparent from the outside that any particular case contains a firearm. That’s by design. Once it clears the TSA check, which happens in the beginning of the baggage handling process, no one else down the chain is aware whether or not a case contains a firearm. If this method works, I suspect it’s purely by coincidence.
I’m finally having some time to go over ANJRPC‘s Federal Complaint in detail. The important thing is that this was filed in Federal Court. New Jersey’s court system is notoriously stacked against gun owners. The courts in the Garden State are highly political, sometimes corrupt, and will often ignore plain law. It is fair to say the independence of New Jersey’s courts leaves much to be desired. The Federal Courts are a much better venue to raise questions like this than in New Jersey courts.
We get into federal court through what’s called Federal-question jurisdiction, namely the claim that federal law preempts states for prohibiting the sale of air guns, and that New Jersey is violating said federal law with their rationing scheme. That is the real meat of the case. But because we are raising claims under a federal question, we can also raise claims under Supplemental Jurisdiction, and this lawsuit does that as well. The first concurrent claim related to the original count is raised under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, claiming (legal format altered for space and readability):
Members of Plaintiff Association wish to qualify for one or more of the Exemptions. On or about January 13, 2010, Plaintiff Bach applied for three Handgun Purchase Permits. Plaintiff Bach wishes to apply for the Collector Exemption so he can purchase more than one handgun within a 30 day period, which purchase would satisfy the statutory criteria for the Collector Exemption.
On or about January 14, 2010, Plaintiff Bach inquired of the State Police as to what procedure is available to apply for the Exemptions. The State Police told him that there was none at this time. Upon information and belief, at this time there is no procedure in place by which an applicant can apply for and the Superintendent can grant any of the Exemptions.
Accordingly, certain Plaintiffs and/or Members of Plaintiffs who would qualify for one or more Exemptions, and who would therefore be entitled by law to purchase more than one handgun in a 30 day period are being unlawfully constrained by the One Gun Law, are unable to purchase more than one handgun in a 30 day period, and are unlawfully subject to prosecution if they do so.
Therefore, Plaintiffs are being deprived of their liberty and/or property without due process of law in violation of Amendment XIV of the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, including, but not limited to, relief enjoining the enforcement of the One Gun Law.
So the law provides for an exception, and the State Police claim to have no procedure for dealing with the new law. This is typical of how New Jersey operates, and New Jersey gun owners should be greatly pleased, for once, they will have to answer for it in court. The next claim is similar, also under the 14th Amendment:
N.J.A.C. 13:54-1.4(h) provides as follows:
Applicants for a permit to purchase a handgun may apply for more than one permit per application. The number of permits requested, and each permit number shall be entered in the spaces provided on the application.
On or about January 7, 2010, Plaintiff Johnson applied for two Handgun Purchase Permits at the Washington Township (Morris County) Police Department. Notwithstanding the One Gun Law, Plaintiff Johnson can save time, effort, and expense by applying for multiple Handgun Purchase Permits simultaneously and lawfully using only one Handgun Purchase Permit with any given 30 day period. On or about January 8, 2010, the Chief of Police of Washington Township notified Plaintiff Johnson by letter that as of January 1, 2010 the New Jersey State Police are only permitting one application for a Handgun Purchase Permit per month and returned the fee for his second Handgun Purchase Permit. By denying Plaintiff Johnson’s right to apply for two Handgun Purchase Permits simultaneously, Defendant Washington violated N.J.A.C. 13:54-1.4(h), which explicitly authorizes such application.
The law actually allows individuals to still apply for more than one permit to purchase at a time. The claim is that police departments are violating the law by refusing to accept applications at a rate of more than one per month. Presumably then it would be up to the purchaser and dealer to ration the gun purchases, however this complaint asks for injunctive relief against the entire law, the two concurrent claims just help make the case stronger, and will possibly put police departments under court order not to enforce any aspects of the one gun a month law.
Police departments in New Jersey having to follow the law when it comes to gun permits? What a novel concept! This suit does not raise any Second Amendment claims, which is prudent given that we do not yet have a ruling in McDonald as of yet as to how the Fourteenth Amendment applies Second Amendment rights to the states.
Looks like the first of the New Jersey gun rationing lawsuit is hitting the main stream media:
New Jersey gun owners took a parting shot at the waning administration of Gov. Jon Corzine today, filing a federal lawsuit challenging his one-handgun-a-month law, claiming it is unconstitutional and that some towns already make it impossible to obtain one pistol in six months.
The article has it kind of right, though it really glosses over the fundamental issues, which I will cover later. Either way, it has Bryan Miller’s panties in a bunch:
“Typical gun-extremist nonsense,†said Bryan Miller, executive director of Ceasefire NJ, a gun-control organization. “This is typical of the gun lobby — never satisfied, always seeking to have everybody armed. … I think the court will probably throw this frivolous suit out.â€
Pretty clearly Bryan didn’t read the Complaint, unless he wants to explain why this lawsuit is “frivolous.” But hey, getting Bryan upset makes this all worth it to me. I will say, it’s nice scooping the MSM on a story.
VCDL is reporting on a bill that’s being introduced in Maryland, much along the same lines as Delaware, which while still technically being a may-issue state, was able to, nonetheless, pass a reciprocity bill. This Maryland bill will recognize licenses issued by surrounding states, including Pennsylvania, but oddly not including West Virginia. I don’t know why they left out West Virginia. Maybe the sponsor has it in for them. Either way, I don’t think this bill stands much of a chance, but it’s worth supporting anyway, just to let the politicians know we still care. I just wouldn’t have unrealistic expectations about its chances. It is scheduled for a committee hearing, so if you live in Maryland, that’s one thing to consider showing up for. It’s scheduled for next Tuesday at 1:00PM.
And before anyone says I’m just being a Negative Nancy with my assessment of the Bill’s chances, I’d encourage folks to look at the makeup of the Maryland House Judiciary committee. You have a B- chair, which might be how we got a hearing at all. You have seven pro-gun (NRA B and higher) votes on that committee, plus the chairman, out of 22 members of the committee. It’s a very polarized committee, where everyone is either and A or B or  D or F, which probably reflects the state as a whole on the gun issue. There are a lot of question mark candidates, but in a state like Maryland, those should be counted as likely Fs. There is one C grade on the committee, but even if you swing that one, it’s still not enough votes to get it to the floor. And even if you get it to the floor, it’s going to die there.
It is still worth contacting legislators, and showing up. It takes a long time to bring a movement to eventual success, but we should approach the fight with realistic expectations. Otherwise you risk disillusioning your followers. The real benefit going forward is to get all these question marks on record, so next election they carry grades that reflect their actual attitude toward our rights.