Month: July 2010

Uncategorized

Request for Supplemental Briefing in Nordyke Case

July 15, 2010 by

Gene Hoffman of the CalGuns Foundations reports that the attorney for Nordyke, Donald Kilmer, has filed a request with the 9th Circuit for a supplemental briefing.

Kilmer argues in his brief that:

Among other issues that were resurrected in this case by
McDonald, the County has never proffered any evidence that the
fairgrounds is a sensitive place. Because the Supreme Court was
unequivocal in its pronouncement that the Second Amendment is a
fundamental right – that must now be respected by state and local
governments – it is imperative that this Court put the County to its
constitutional burdens of producing evidence (rather than conclusory
statements) that they are addressing a compelling government interest
and that the County’s means are narrowly tailored to that interest.

I don’t know whether they will allow this supplemental briefs or not. However, Kilmer does put in a wonderful footnote that just flat out sticks it to California and to Alameda County.

It is late in the game for either the County of Alameda (or the State of California for that matter) to claim that they “know” what the scope of the Second Amendment is, when they have maintained all along that it is a meaningless
anachronism that does not define a fundamental right.

Uncategorized

Banned in Chicago

July 15, 2010 by 2 Comments

An example of something banned in Chicago. It is a TZ-75 made in Italy by Tanfoglio and imported by F.I.E. I did replace the original wood grips with Hogue grips.

From a description found on the Internet:

Tanfoglio TZ-75/TA-90

Notes: In the early 1980s, the Czech CZ-75 pistol had become a worldwide sensation, and demand for the CZ-75 far outstripped Ceska Zbrojovka’s manufacturing capabilities, or those of any other single firm for that matter. Ceska Zbrojovka therefore began selling licenses to several other European arms manufactures – both Eastern and Western, and also gave most of wide latitude to alter the basic CZ-75 design. Tanfoglio was one of these companies, with their version being called the TZ-75, and produced primarily for export to the US. Early export versions sold in the US by FIE were sold as the “TZ-75,” but most of these weapons, imported later by a succession of companies, were sold as the “TA-90” and are designed to appear more like the CZ-75.

The TZ-75 differs from the CZ-75 in several ways. The original TZ-75, in fact, was externally quite different in appearance from the CZ-75, with a sleeker overall shape, a more ergonomic grip, a squared trigger guard, and a larger spur-type hammer. The sights were also of the three-dot type, and larger than those of the CZ-75 (the CZ-75’s tiny sights are one of the few consistent criticisms it has received). The TZ-75 also added a slide-mounted safety/decocker, with ambidextrous controls being an option. The TZ-75 was available in several different finishes; the most common were blued and chromed. Grip plates were of walnut or rubber, and the walnut grips could be had checkered or smooth. The barrel of the TZ-75 is also just a little bit longer than that of the CZ-75’s 4.7-inch barrel – the TZ-75’s barrel length is 4.75-inches. The TZ-75 was later altered to make it look more like an actual CZ-75; though this mostly consisted of restyling, the manual safety was also moved to the frame, deleted the decocking feature, and simply locked the slide, hammer and sear. This later production TZ-75 was designated by Tanfoglio the TZ-75 ’88; for game purposes, it is identical to the TZ-75.

I just shake my head at the stupidity of whomever put the “unsafe” list together as this is a solid, well-made, all steel handgun in 9mm. Jeez!

Uncategorized

Another Critique of the Decsion in Skoien

July 14, 2010 by

Douglas Berman, the William B. Saxbe Designated Professor of Law at Ohio State, offers another critique of the decision in United States v. Skoien on his blog Sentencing Law and Policy.

Professor Berman says the opinion reinforces his belief that “Second Amendment jurisprudence is going to be very messy and very challenging in the months and years ahead” after the Heller and McDonald decisions. He then goes on to point out three areas in which the Skoien opinion by Chief Judge Easterbrook highlights this reality.

First, there is uncertainty about the standard of review. Should it be intermediate scrutiny, strict scrutiny, or what? The opinion cites Heller but then goes on say that they are not going to get into the scrutiny “quagmire.”

Skoien foreshadows a “quagmire” if (and when?) Second Amendment jurisprudence has to start sorting through levels of scrutiny, and its seeks to avoid this quagmire by positing that (any and all?) gun regulations are substantially related to an important governmental objective. But given that gun regulations are always aimed at improving public safety and that the creators of such regulations surely see their restrictions as substantially related to this goal, it is unclear how much more real bite is being given to a standard of review here in Skoien.

Second, the 7th Circuit is too ready to accept the government’s justification for gun control.

If preventing gun violence (i.e., “armed mayhem”) is always going to qualify as an important governmental objective, and if “logic and data” of the sort set out in Skoien is adequate to justify a very broad criminal prohibition on gun possession by a large class of persons, it seem very unlikely that many (or really any) partial gun bans will be struck down.

Finally, the 7th Circuit used questionable analogies to the First Amendment and sex offender registration in their opinion.

As the dissent notes, there are no categories of persons who are subject to criminal prosecution just for seeking to exercise a freedom to speak. (There are categories of speech not subject to constitutional protection, but this is analgous to arms like bazookas and bombs that I assume are categorically excluded from coverage by the Second Amendment.) Similarly questionable is the suggestion in Skoien that allowing registration and zoning rules for convicted sex offenders makes “generally proper” a categorical exclusion of certain misdemeanant from a fundamental right expressly protected by the Bill of Rights.

 Berman concludes by saying that while he found the opinion not convincing his goal was not to criticize the opinion but to point out how hard it will be for courts going forward “to sort through all the challenging constitutional issues implicated by modern gun restrictions and the new constitutional gun rights set out in Heller and McDonald.”

H/T to Instapundit who notes that he and Brannon Denning are writing a post-McDonald law review article. 

Uncategorized

Chicago’s List of “Unsafe” Handguns

July 14, 2010 by 7 Comments

The City of Chicago has released it roster of “unsafe” (sic) handguns. You can download the PDF here.

My first impression after reading the list is that they really scrounged hard to find some of those manufacturers. I would estimate that I didn’t recognize the name of about 90% of them.

They had some of the obvious choices given the demonization of anything made by Lorcin, Davis, Jimenez, or Bryco Arms by the anti-gun lobby.

They also banned everything from F.I.E. and Hi-Point. Now I may not want a Hi-Point and they get some grief in gun circles but I don’t think they are particularly unsafe. As to F.I.E.being on the list, this would mean my Tanfoglio-made F.I.E. TZ-75 9mm is banned. Obviously not much thought went into that choice as it is a solid, well made pistol.

Derringers are out. Michael Bane is going to be pissed at them that they dissed his Bond Arms derringers! Anything with a spur trigger or a sheathed trigger is out – not that you usually see these outside of collections of early pistols for the most part.

I am incredulous that they included the Walther P22, the SIG Mosquito, and anything by Whitney such as the Wolverine on the list as “unsafe”. WTF?

And, finally, in a swipe at Wile E. Coyote, they banned anything and everything by Acme and Acme Arms.

UPDATE:  A reader on SayUncle notes that the Unique DES-69U is not a cheap handgun. The Canadians include the DES-69U on a list specifically exempted from classification as “unsafe”. Why? Because it is used in Olympic shooting and it is on a list of firearms provided to them by USA Shooting. I guess that isn’t good enough for Chicago.

Uncategorized

7th Circuit Upholds Ban on Firearms for Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Convictions

July 13, 2010 by 1 Comment

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled en banc today that a person convicted of a misdemeanor for domestic violence is prohibited from possessing firearms. The case, United States v. Skoien, came to the 7th Circuit on appeal from the US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. By their ruling, the 7th Circuit en banc upheld the Lautenberg Amendment and overturned the earlier decision by a 3-judge panel of the 7th Circuit which held that the prohibition on possession was not categorical.

Josh Blackman in his blog has an extensive analysis of this case. He thinks that there will be significant ripples from this case and that it could easily head to the Supreme Court as there is some disagreement among the various Circuit Courts on the legitimacy of Lautenberg.

The dissent by Judge Sykes is important because he felt it the burden should be on the government “of justifying the application of laws that criminalize the exercise of enumerated constitutional rights. We should follow that norm, not pay lip service to it.” I’m sure it will be quoted in the future.

Uncategorized

In Chicago – “We Want to Know Who Has Weapons”

July 13, 2010 by 3 Comments

The new Chicago gun ordinance went into effect yesterday and dozens flocked to Police Headquarters to pick up the registration forms according to the Sun-Times.

At a new conference, Jody Weis, Chicago Police Superintendent, said:

We want to know who has weapons so that first responders can be aware of that information before they enter a home.

I guess Supt. Weis is ignorant of the fact that under Illinois law all gun owners are required to have a Firearms Owner ID card – the FOID Card. One would think that since this info is held by the State Police that all other police agencies would have access to the info as well.

The new ordinance mandates processing in 120 days but other reports suggest it will take 5 1/2 months before the first handgun registration is finally processed. The Chicago PD has the forms and the law on their web site where they refer to it as the “Responsible Gun Ownership Ordinance”. They suggest you just download the forms instead of coming to the Police Headquarters. Under no circumstances, they say, should you show up with your firearm.

Supt. Weis also said about the new law at the news conference:

The ordinance bars people from buying more than one handgun a month. Weis said there’s no restriction on spouses or relatives of felons buying guns and keeping them in the house where a felon resides.

But the city’s ordinance doesn’t allow residents to carry handguns outside their homes. That includes garages and porches, Weis noted.

I won’t even comment on the garages and porches not being part of a home but you would think that the Police Superintendent, a former FBI Special Agent, should know a little bit about Federal law. If a felon’s spouse or relative has a gun in the same house where the felon resides, the felon would be considered in constructive possession of a firearm and liable to charged under Federal firearms law. Remember, ignorance of the law is no excuse for you but is OK for the cops.

Uncategorized

Nordyke Remanded Back to Original 3-Judge Panel

July 13, 2010 by

Eugene Volokh of the Volokh Conspiracy analyzes the remand decision here. He notes that the original panel accepted Alameda County’s contention that the fairgrounds were a sensitive place which is not good news for Nordyke.

I agree with Sebastian at Snowflakes In Hell when he says:

I think the reasoning is poor, since not all government property can rightly be considered a sensitive place. I hope the panel does a more thorough analysis this time around of sensitive places.

As Donald Kilmer, attorney for the Nordykes, noted in his 28j letter, Alameda County did not show that banning gun shows in the fairgrounds would reduce crime nor did they produce evidence that the fairgrounds were a sensitive place.

Uncategorized

NC Hunting Regs Released

July 12, 2010 by

Big changes are coming to North Carolina hunting regulations starting August 1st. While there are many changes regarding deer seasons, the biggest changes that I see are Sunday hunting with a bow is allowed on private property and crossbows will be allowed anytime bow and arrow hunting is legal. Falconry is also allowed on Sundays. Many of these changes which were proposed in March 2009 were opposed so they had to go to the General Assembly for review. Four bills were introduced to reverse some of the proposed changes but they were never approved.

Sunday hunting was strongly opposed by the Christian Action League but they don’t have the clout in the General Assembly that they did in years gone by.While a couple of their backers in the General Assembly did introduce a bill to ban Sunday hunting, it died for lack of a referral by the Democratic caucus to the Rules Committee.

The North Carolina Bowhunters Association fought the introduction of crossbows for anyone but the handicapped. They said they were “working with the NC Legislature and the Wildlife Resource Commission to stop the inclusion of crossbows in archery season and to disallow the loss of the last (and best) week of archery season to muzzle loader season.” They lost on both counts though they did have bills introduced to disallow the use of crossbows. Crossbows are allowed for hunting in all the states that surround North Carolina.

Crossbows will still require a permit to purchase them from the local sheriff’s department. It is the same permit as is required to purchase a pistol. I don’t know who originally dreamed up that stupid requirement nor when it went into place.

The full list of changes can be found in on the NC Wildlife Resources Commission website.

I see some Sunday hunting with a crossbow in my future!

Uncategorized

Clues Your Financial Advisor Might Be a Russian Spy

July 12, 2010 by

Cynthia Murphy (aka Lydia Guryev), one of the Russian spies arrested and deported, worked as financial planner for a small firm in NYC and, as much as it pains me to say it, she held the Certified Financial Planner(TM) designation. By all accounts, she was a skilled and conscientious advisor.

So how can you know your advisor isn’t a Russian spy? Investment News presents these ten clues to look for to determine if they are working for you or Putin.