Uncategorized

Uncategorized

Morally Outdated?

January 25, 2011 by

A few days ago the Russian Defense Minister, Anatoly Serdyukov, began a firestorm of controversy in Russia (and in the blogosphere) by saying that the Kalashnikov and Dragunov SVDs sniper rifles are “morally outdated”. He made it worse by saying he was thinking of buying foreign weapons.

Somehow I don’t think these guys in this recruiting video for the Russian airborne, the VDV (vozdushno-desantnie voiska), would agree.

I still like my AK-74 but think those blue berets and blue-striped undershirts are a little…uh, different.

H/T SayUncle

Uncategorized

Why Is ATF Involved And Not DEA?

January 25, 2011 by 4 Comments

I’ve subscribed to the press releases from BATFE headquarters and certain of their field divisions. I think it is smart to keep tabs on what they are doing. I got the following press release sent out by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois.

McHenry County Man Charged with Federal Drug Trafficking Charges

ROCKFORD — PATRICK J. FITZGERALD, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, together with ANDREW L. TRAVER, Special Agent-In-Charge of the Chicago Office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and KEITH NYGREN, McHenry County Sheriff, today announced:

A federal grand jury in Rockford yesterday returned an indictment charging BRIAN M. BLUM, 31, of McHenry, with two counts of distributing cocaine. If convicted of the offenses charged, Blum may be sentenced up to 30 years of imprisonment, as well as a fine of up to $2,000,000, for each count. Blum will be arraigned on January 19, 2011, at 10:30 a.m. before Magistrate Judge P. Michael Mahoney in the federal courthouse in Rockford.

The case was investigated by Special Agents of the Rockford Office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives and the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department with the assistance of the United States Marshals Service. The case will be prosecuted in federal court by Assistant United States Attorney Joseph C. Pedersen.

Members of the public are reminded that an indictment is only a charge and is not evidence of guilt. The defendant is entitled to a fair trial at which the government has the burden of proving that defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Beyond the self-serving nature of this press release, why is ATF involved in a drug case and not the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration)? It would seem outside of their assigned mission of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives. Am I missing something here?

Uncategorized

Permanent Injunction Issued Against California AB 962

January 25, 2011 by

From Chuck Michel regarding Parker et al v. California where the Fresno Superior Court today issued an Order of Permanent Injunction against the handgun registration act.

January 24, 2011 – Today the Fresno Superior Court issued an Order of Permanent Injunction in the NRA – CRPA Foundation funded legal challenge to AB962, Parker v. California. The order permanently prevents the state and its agents from enforcing the provisions of AB962 (Penal Code sections 12060, 12061, and 12318). A copy of the Order is here. The Order comes following a dramatic ruling giving gun owners a win in a National Rifle Association / California Rifle and Pistol (CRPA) Foundation lawsuit. On January 18th, Fresno Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Hamilton ruled that AB 962, the hotly contested statute that would have banned mail order ammunition sales and required all purchases of so called “handgun ammunition” to be registered, was unconstitutionally vague on its face. By enjoining enforcement of these statutes, mail order ammunition sales to California can continue unabated, and ammunition sales need not be registered under the law. A formal written ruling from the court will be issued soon.

The lawsuit was prompted in part by the many objections and questions raised by confused police, ammunition purchasers, and sellers about what ammunition is covered by the new laws created by AB 962. In a highly unusual move that reflects growing law enforcement opposition to ineffective gun control laws, Tehama County Sheriff Clay Parker is the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. Other plaintiffs include the CRPA Foundation, Herb Bauer Sporting Goods, ammunition shipper Able’s Ammo, collectible ammunition shipper RTG Sporting Collectibles, and individual Steven Stonecipher.

In addition to these plaintiffs, Mendocino Sheriff Tom Allman, along with ammunition shippers Midway USA, Natchez Shooters Supplies, and Cheaper Than Dirt also submitted declarations in support of the lawsuit.

The ruling comes just days before the portion of the law that bans mail order sales of so called “handgun ammunition” was set to take effect on February 1, 2011. The lawsuit, Parker v. California is funded exclusively by the NRA and the CRPA Foundation. If it had gone into effect, AB 962 would have imposed burdensome and ill conceived restrictions on the sales of ammunition. AB 962 required that “handgun ammunition” be stored out of the reach of customers, that ammunition vendors collect ammunition sales registration information and thumb-prints from purchasers, and conduct transactions face-to-face for all deliveries and transfers of “handgun ammunition.” The lawsuit successfully sought the declaration from the Court that the statute was unconstitutional, and successfully sought the injunctive relief prohibiting law enforcement from enforcing the new laws.

The lawsuit alleged, and the Court agreed, that AB 962 is unconstitutionally vague on its face because it fails to provide sufficient legal notice of what ammunition cartridges are “principally for use in a handgun,” and thus is considered “handgun ammunition” that is regulated under AB 962. It is practically impossible, both for those subject to the law and for those who must enforce it, to determine whether any of the thousands of different types of ammunition cartridges that can be used in handguns are actually “principally for use in” or used more often in, a handgun. The proportional usage of any given cartridge is impossible to determine, and in any event changes with market demands. In fact, the legislature itself is well aware of the vagueness problem with AB 962’s definition of “handgun ammunition” and tried to redefine it via AB 2358 in 2010. AB 2358 failed in the face of opposition from the NRA and CRPA based on the proposal’s many other nonsensical infringements on ammunition sales to law abiding citizens.

Constitutional vagueness challenges to state laws are extremely difficult to win, particularly in California firearms litigation so this success is particularly noteworthy. Even so, an appeal by the State is likely, but the Court’s Order enjoining enforcement of the law is effective – February 1, 2011 – immediately regardless.

Despite this win for common sense over ill-conceived and counter productive gun laws, additional legislation on this and related subjects will no doubt be proposed in Sacramento this legislative session. It is absolutely critical that those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms stay informed and make their voices heard in Sacramento. When AB 962 passed there was loud outcry from law abiding gun owners impacted by the new law. Those voices must be heard during the legislative session and before a proposed law passes, not after a law is signed. To help, sign up for legislative alerts at www.nraila.com and www.calnra.com and respond when called upon.

Uncategorized

Woollard v. Sheridan – Amended Complaint Filed

January 24, 2011 by 1 Comment

At the end of 2010, Judge J. Frederick Motz partially denied the State of Maryland’s motion to dismiss the Second Amendment Foundation’s challenge to Maryland’s concealed carry law requirement of “apprehended danger”.  He did, however, dismiss that portion of the case claiming violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it did not make a claim upon which relief could be granted. Fortunately, he gave the plaintiffs until the January 21st to file an amended complaint correcting this defect.

Alan Gura filed the amended complaint on January 19. The amended complaint follows the original complaint word for word up until the statement of a claim in Count II.

Maryland Public Safety Code § 5-306(a)(5)(ii)’s requirement that handgun carry permit applicants demonstrate cause for the issuance of a permit impermissibly classifies individuals with respect to the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right. The provision creates two classification of individuals. Applicants who have demonstrated to Defendants’ satisfaction that a handgun carry permit is “necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger,” or that they face a greater than average level of danger, are given permits; applicants who cannot satisfy that burden are not given permits. The classification system is inherently arbitrary, irrational, and deprives individuals of their fundamental right to bear arms based on criteria that cannot be justified under any means-ends level of scrutiny for the security of a fundamental constitutional right. The provision thus violates Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the law, damaging them in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to permanent injunctive relief against the enforcement of this provision.

Bold text represents the addition to the complaint.

The most significant part of this restating of the claim is that it argues that under any level of scrutiny the Maryland requirements are unconstitutional. A “means-end level of scrutiny” refers to the rational basis level of scrutiny which is the lowest used in consideration of constitutional rights. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ recent decision in Chester calls for intermediate scrutiny – or a level higher – as the minimum in Second Amendment cases.

Uncategorized

Indefensible Is Right

January 24, 2011 by 2 Comments

Judge Milton Shadur denied attorneys fees to the plaintiffs in McDonald v. Chicago saying that because Chicago changed their gun laws the case was moot. Since it was moot, then there was no prevailing party which, to be blunt, is utter bullshit. Chicago lost and McDonald won.

Dave Hardy has the whole ruling and his comments on it at Arms and the Law.

This ruling is, I’m sure, simply indefensible. They fought all the way to the U.S. Supremes, won there, Chicago (with no choices left) changed its ordinance … and the court still rules McDonald was not the “prevailing party.” I trust this is going to appealed, although it may be assigned to the same Seventh Circuit panel (which definitely did not like the McDonald result and thus may, like the District Court, let it show).

Uncategorized

Why They Hate Us

January 23, 2011 by 2 Comments

The Wall Street Journal’s Weekend Edition ran a travelogue by journalist Kate Bolick on her visit to Austin, Texas. On her last day she visited a shooting range. Here is how she described it:

Day Four: Monday
9 a.m. Close out your trip with a bang—literally! Red’s Indoor Range (6200 Highway 290 West; 512-892-4867; redsguns.com) in the aptly named Convict Hill, is only a 15-minute drive away, and for the uninitiated, shooting a gun can be shockingly intoxicating. There’s no better way to imbue yourself with a dose of Texan swagger—and the testosterone rush will embolden you for the trial to come: flying home.

 The gun prohibitionists of the Brady Campaign, the Violence Policy Center, and others of their ilk would have you believe that the only reason to have and shoot a firearm is to kill someone or something. In their dour, almost Calvinistic, worldview, the thought that someone – especially a woman – could enjoy herself by indulging in an hour or two of target shooting is inconceivable. That there are sports like IDPA, sporting clays, and cowboy action shooting which involve firearms and no killing is beyond their comprehension.

I don’t know Ms. Bolick’s background with guns and don’t know if this was the first time she ever handled a firearm but her experience reinforces the idea that taking someone shooting is the best way to inoculate them against the anti-gun message peddled by the prohibitionists and their allies in the media. What these groups fear most of all is the feeling that Ms. Bolick describes – the sheer joy combined with the feeling of empowerment that can come from shooting.

And that is why they hate us.

Uncategorized

Astroturfing By ThinkProgress

January 21, 2011 by 6 Comments

Reporters from ThinkProgress, which is the lefty website for the Center for American Progress Action Fund, attended the SHOT Show this week. They were trolling for people who would say that standard capacity magazines were not needed for self-defense. As might be expected in an edited video, they found the answers they wanted. I imagine this clip will be shown to Congressional staffers and wavering Representatives in an effort to pass HR 308.

You have to wonder how many of the people answering the question realized that they were being used. It points out just how tricky it can be dealing with the press and advocacy groups.

ThinkProgress attended the SHOT Show convention in Las Vegas this week — “the largest and most comprehensive trade show for all professionals involved with the shooting sports and hunting industries” — and asked many attendees if they thought these types of clips are necessary for self-defense. Most we talked to concurred, “Not really”:

TP: Do you think that for self defense purposes it matters whether you have 10 or 15 rounds in your magazine?

ATTENDEE 1: Probably not. No probably not. Honestly. […]

ATTENDEE 2: It takes one shot to kill. … Anything more than one shot is excessive. I mean if someone is breaking in to your house at a panic you’re might going to shoot him once. You’re not going to empty your load on him while they’re lying on your kitchen floor. […]

TP: If someone were to use a gun for self protection purposes, would they need 10, 30 rounds?

ATTENDEE 3: No, I hope not. I don’t know why. If ten rounds of ammunition can’t do the job you probably shouldn’t own a gun. I don’t want to live next to that guy.

Uncategorized

The Other Brady Bill – HR 318

January 21, 2011 by

Congressman Bob Brady (D-PA) of Philadelphia has followed through on his promise to introduce a bill to criminalize threatening speech against members of Congress. His bill would piggy-back on existing law that makes it a crime to threaten the President or Vice-President. The existing law, 18 USC 871, makes it a crime to:

Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

The text of Brady’s bill, HR 318, is below. Currently, it has no co-sponsors.

H.R.318
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to punish threats to commit violent crimes against Members of Congress, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 871.

Section 871 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking `or Vice President-elect’ and inserting `Vice President-elect, Member of Congress or Member-of-Congress-elect’.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO SECTION HEADING AND TABLE OF SECTIONS.

(a) Section Heading- The heading for section 871 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`Sec. 871. Threats against President, Vice President, and Members of Congress’.

(b) Table of Sections- The item for section 871 in the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 41 is amended to read as follows:

`871. Threats against President, Vice President, and Members of Congress.’.

I know Members of Congress are convinced of their own importance but frankly they are not the Head of State and don’t need to have the Secret Service following up on every letter from an angry constituent. This is not to say that credible threats should not be investigated. They are and should be investigated. However, there are plenty of other laws on the books, both Federal and state, which can take care of these type of offenses without making one specifically for Members of Congress. People have spoken of the Imperial Presidency for decades. We don’t need to add the Imperial Congress to that list.