This one was due to a prank call from someone on a deactivated pre-paid cell phone telling police he had just shot his wife and was going to shoot himself. They apparently extracted everyone from the house, and the calls kept coming. What I want to know is, why call out the “emergency response team” for a guy threatening to complete the suicide part of the murder-suicide. Shouldn’t the correct response to “I just shot my wife, and I’m going to shoot myself,” be “It would be nice if you could save the taxpayers all that money. Go ahead. I’ll wait for the bang to dispatch the meat wagon?”
ATF Redefines Transfers
Hopefully this is not a harbinger of more to come, though that wouldn’t surprise me, but ATF has concluded that certain transfers by manufacturer FFLs should be subject to the Gun Control Act and Brady Act:
Reversing an interpretation of the Gun Control Act that has been on the books for more than four decades, ATF today posted a rulingdeclaring any shipment of a firearm by a manufacturer (FFL) to any agent or business (e.g., an engineering-design firm, patent lawyer, testing lab, gun writer, etc.) for a bona fide business purpose to be a “transfer” under the Gun Control Act of 1968. As a consequence, legitimate business-related shipments will now require the recipient to complete a Form 4473 and undergo a Brady criminal background check. In many instances, these requirements will force shipments to a third party, thereby lengthening the process and the time that the firearm is in transit.
But of course this is to prevent criminals from exploiting the dreaded engineering design firm loophope. Well, except that, “ATF is unable to identify a single instance during the past 40 years where a single firearm shipped in reliance upon ATF’s rulings was used in a crime.” Well, that may be, but surely terrorists are going to become patent attorneys so they can steal the guns they are sent to evaluate, and use them to shoot down jetliners. It’s only a matter of time.
Why Independence Seaport Museum Can’t Raise the Money
Speaking once again of saving the Olympia, I found this explanation for why they might have difficulty raising the money to save this floating bit of history. From Wikipedia:
In June 2007 former Independence Seaport Museum president John S. Carter pleaded guilty to charges of fraud and tax evasion from misappropriating more than US$1 million in funds from the museum. He received a fifteen year sentence in federal prison.[3] Carter, who was president of the museum from 1989 to March 2006, was accused of using money from the museum to buy numerous personal items, including two boats, an espresso machine and a carriage house for his home in Cape Cod between 1997 and 2006.[2][4]
So it looks like Philadelphia’s penchant for graft and corruption will finally end up doing what the Spanish could never do.
Sea Shepherd Trial Begins
Japan is not noted for having a fair justice system that respects the rights of the accused. But these idiots probably should have thought of that before boarding a Japanese vessel on the high seas. Interesting that he’s facing knife charges. What’s the difference between a legal and illegal knife in Japan? Surely they have cutlery.
What Color is the Constitution in Eleanor Norton’s World?
“It is difficult to understand the obsession by some members of Congress with a congressional district that is not their own. Worse, neither Mr. Gingrey, nor any other member of Congress, would tolerate interference with the local laws of their district. Neither will I,” Norton said. “However, Mr. Gingrey’s aim is transparent: to score political points at the expense of residents of the nation’s capital.”
Not their own? I could swear there being something in my copy of the constitution about Congress having the power, “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States,” among other things. I don’t know what color the Constitution is in Eleanor Holmes Norton’s world, not even speaking of the sky, but Congress is vested by the constitution with ultimate authority over the District of Columbia, which means what goes on in The District, especially when it comes to constitutional issues, is most definitely Congress’ business.
DC Trying to Screw Gura on Attorneys Fees
Basically they don’t want to pay up. Alan Gura, understandably, wants to be paid. It’s important that Gura win this, not just for his own sake, but for ours as well. DC should have to pay the cost of defending an unconstitutional law, and that has to include reasonable fees for the person who challenges them.
The fact that this is getting some public play is also good. That 3.5 million dollar price tag DC is getting slapped with will be noticed by other state or municipalities, and that might make them decide to just fold rather than proceeding forward with a court case and losing. I look forward to Mr. Gura pursuing Chicago for attorneys fees if we prevail there. The idea of Chicago having to fork over a seven figure check is even sweeter than DC having to do it.
Mother Jones Not Happy With Obama on AWB
They seem to be upset that even after Calderon’s speech before Congress, that Obama still doesn’t want to touch the assault weapons issue. There’s a great irony, also, in the photo Mother Jones chose for their article. The rifle appearing is a South Korean assault rifle made by Daewoo, which has never been lawful to import into the United States for civilian use. There is a semi-automatic variant called the DR-200, but they were made illegal for importation into the United States in 1997 because they were determined to be non-sporting under the Gun Control Act of 1968. There are very few of those in the country. Obama hasn’t reversed that determination. If you’re going to pick a firearm to illustrate the point that Obama won’t ban assault weapons, it’s probably best not to pick one that’s already banned, and still banned.
Gun Debate Breaks out in Finland
Looks familiar to anyone in this country:
A pro-weapons advocate, Otso Vainio claims that the hysterical media has distorted the scope of the problem.
“The [average] amount of people killed with legal guns in Finland, I can’t remember exact figures, but it was two point something annually. Thirty-nine people die from the heat of the sauna annually.â€
The gun debate will continue to divide Finland, but if further shooting tragedies happen, it may eventually spur Finnish lawmakers to make citizens surrender their firearms.
If the Finns want to keep their guns, they are going to have to fight to keep them. One of the big problems I think European gun owners have had is they fall back reflexively to the sporting position. The problem with that is, no one is going to agree to preserve your sport over what they see as social ills. Pit sports against the public good and sports are going to lose.
It becomes a very different argument when you frame it as removing people’s ability to defend their own lives. Having spoken with some Europeans about this issue, I will say I don’t know how much this will resonate with them versus how much it resonates with Americans. Some Europeans I’ve spoken with are very committed to the idea that protection is a community function rather than an individual function. In the US, even fairly liberal, lefty people fundamentally believe in the right to use lethal force in self-protection, even if they aren’t completely comfortable with the idea of guns. A big aspect to our success here has been to get ourselves on the side of individual self-protection, and our opponents on the other side of that debate. In any political struggle, you want to pass your position off as the mainstream position, and paint your opponent as a nutty extremist. What’s the issue in Finland? I don’t know. Defense against bears maybe? Then there’s also this kind of bear, which has occasionally been known to wander into Finland.
Wilmington Housing Authority Gets Sued
There’s been pressure put on the Wilmington Housing Authority trying to get them to remove the gun ban language from their leases. It would seem that asking nicely didn’t work, so NRA is filing suit against them.
This sort of ties into the previous post about privilege vs. right. Obviously no one has a right to live in public housing either, really. But how much of a condition may the government impose? If it’s ruled that public housing bans are unconstitutional, it would give more ammunition to a case like the one in the previous post.
Banning Guns in a Household as Probationary Condition
Eugene Volokh links to an interesting case in California:
The prosecution had asked that Javier be placed in a juvenile “camp,†“placement in light of appellant’s gang involvement and prior history,†but the juvenile court sentenced Javier to probation and “house arrest†but with a condition: “I want no weapons anymore at your house. Dad, I’m sorry, no weapons, none.†(This apparently referred to “guns or other deadly or dangerous weapons.â€) And the Court of Appeal upheld this, on the grounds that this was “reasonable in light of the facts that appellant was on probation at the time of the charged offense for possession of a firearm and had admitted to participating in gang activity.â€
This is a difficult question, as to whether this would be constitutional. What makes it questionable is the voluntary nature of the probation. The father could presumably retain his rights and let the kid serve a sentence in juvie. You have a right to a gun, but you don’t have a right to probation. How much can the court condition the exercise of a right on receiving a privilege from the state? One useful way to look at how we condition rights on other state privileges, like free speech for example, versus holding a government job.
This is especially true if you look at this in the free speech context. In some of the Court’s early free speech cases, the courts were pretty deferential to government conditioning the job privilege on limiting free speech rights, with Oliver Wendel Holmes saying, “There may be a constitutional right to talk politics, but there is no constitutional right to be a policeman.”
But modern free speech doctrine does protect a government employees right to free speech. In later cases, beginning in 1967, the Court extended protections for the speech of government employees when they speak on matters of public concern. But it’s important to note that the speech of government employees still does not enjoy the same protections, in terms of the government being able to fire you, that you would enjoy as a private citizen. The government can still fire individuals for certain exercises of what would normally be free speech.
Applied to the gun context, it would seem that the government couldn’t condition not owning a gun in exchange for the privilege of a government job. It strikes me that a probation case involving a juvenile isn’t really that clean an analogy, especially when it was a firearm involved in the original offense. I suspect something like this wouldn’t be constitutional under all circumstances, but under some it might be. This one might be.