by Clayton Cramer has an interesting article up on Pajamas Media looking at mandatory training for concealed carry permits.He discusses both the utility in preventing accidents and the constitutionality of it.
It is well worth a read.
Month: July 2010
Guns, Shooting, and the Dog Days of Summer
For shooters who live in locations where it gets just too damn hot comes this excellent advice from Jim Shepherd, editor and publisher of The Shooting Wire.
With temperatures (and humidity) near triple-digits for the next few days, I’m thankful that the majority of the new gear doesn’t need to be taken to the range to be prepped. In the deep South, summertime is the equivalent of the dead of winter in other parts of the country. You can get outside, but not without paying quite a price.
It’s also a time when your firearms and other gear are highly susceptible to one of the most damaging of all threats – rust.
High humidities cause guns to attract condensation like a leaky double-paned window. Going from air conditioning to sweltering heat will fog more than your glasses. When cold firearms are quickly taken into heat and humidity, the oily residue from physical contact with metal parts shows up as what it really is- a powerful corrosive.
For that reason, I treat my firearms the same way I do my camera equipment. If I’m going outside with advance notice, I put my gear in the garage well in advance. When I leave, it’s far closer to ambient temperatures – and prevents condensation.
And before you accuse me of being reckless, there’s a safe in the garage for that transitioning. Being cautious about your gear doesn’t mean you have an excuse to be reckless. If you own a gun – rusty or not – you’re still responsible for keeping it under control at all times. For me, that means on my side or locked in the safe during the day. At night, well, where my gun is is none of your business.
Anyway…If I find myself going out unexpectedly, I’ve been known to put my spare magazines inside a sandwich bag until they’ve had the opportunity to warm up. It’s not such a problem if you carry a polymer sidearm, but you might want to think a little about your favorite 1911 if you run in and out of air conditioning. Keep it well lubricated – inside and out – to protect it from the elements- and contact with your skin.
You don’t have to live in Alabama like Jim to get near triple digit summer days – or high humidity.
New York Times is Still Fighting the Last War
Today’s New York Times ran an editorial entitled “The Hard Work of Gun Control”. While it was originally published on July 9th, they saw fit to re-run it in their Sunday paper just in case the elites didn’t read it the first time.
Like the dissenters in the McDonald decision, they are still fighting the Heller decision. It must have killed them to acknowledge that, “the law of the land is now that people have a constitutional right to a gun in their home for self-defense.”
They did concede that they thought Chicago’s new gun law was flawed and would likely be overturned.
Cities and states have a need to be extremely tough in limiting access to guns, but they need to do it with more forethought than went into the Chicago ordinance. Lawmakers there sensibly limited residents to one operable handgun per home, with a strict registration and permitting process. But residents are not allowed to buy a gun in the city. They must receive firearms training, but ranges are illegal in the city. Chicago lawmakers sloughed off on the suburbs the responsibility to regulate sales and training. As a result, more people will travel more miles to transport guns.
The law is likely to draw heightened equal-protection scrutiny from skeptical judges at all levels. Chicago would have been better off allowing gun sales under the strict oversight of the police department, which could then better check the backgrounds and movements of every buyer and seller. The District of Columbia passed a largely similar ordinance last year after its law was struck down by the court. But it permits sales at the few gun shops in the district, and a federal judge upheld that ordinance after it was challenged. It could stand as a model for other cities.
They thought the lawsuit against the new Chicago gun law was over-the-top.
It disputes virtually every aspect of the law as a violation of the Second Amendment and poses ludicrous hypothetical situations to show that everyone needs a gun. “If an elderly widow lives in an unsafe neighborhood and asks her son to spend the night because she has recently received harassing phone calls,” the lawsuit complains, “the son may not bring his registered firearm with him to his mother’s home as an aid to the defense of himself and his mother.” Putting granny in the middle of a neighborhood firefight is preferable to having her simply call the police?
I guess they never heard of the wait times for police response to 911 calls and that the police have no legal obligation to protect you.
They conclude with a call for “tough but sensible” laws and with a shot at Alan Gura and “the gun lobby”.
The gun lobby is going to attack virtually every gun ordinance it can find, if only to see what it can get away with now. (Last week, the same lawyers who brought the Chicago and Washington cases sued North Carolina, challenging a law that prohibits carrying weapons during a state of emergency.)
All I can say as a North Carolinian is “Go Alan!”
Update on Nordyke Case
From calguns.net, it is reported that Nordyke’s counsel of record, Donald Kilmer, has filed a 28j letter with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
A “28j letter” informs a court that has a pending decision before it of new relevant decisions that could impact their decision. In this case, the relevant decision is McDonald v. Chicago.
Kilmer notes in his letter that the controlling opinions in McDonald placed great emphasis on Congressional interpretations of fundamental rights as shown by statutory language. He then notes that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act recognizes that the Second Amendment protects more than just the mere possession of a handgun in the home. He concludes that since Alameda County has produced no evidence that banning gun shows on their fairgrounds will reduce crime or that it is a sensitive place, then the court should force the county to meet it constitutionally required burden and allow gun shows on the fairgrounds.
Another Chicago Lawsuit
When it rains, it pours. At least that is the way it must seem if you are Hizzoner Mayor Richard Daley. On the heels of Benson et al v. Chicago – the lawsuit the NRA and the Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers is bringing – comes another case, Second Amendment Arms et al v. Chicago.
According to the Chicago Sun-Times and court filings, Joseph Franzese, owner of Second Amendment Arms, and Robert Zieman have filed suit in the US District Court against the City of Chicago, Mayor Daley, and other Chicago officials. Second Amendment Arms is seeking to open guns stores in Lincoln Park and on Michigan Avenue while Mr. Zieman is seeking restitution for handguns confiscated under the 1982 handgun ban ordinance. Second Amendment Arms has filed applications for both of these stores with the City Clerk’s Office.
Franzese wants to open “boutique” type gun stores in Lincoln Park and on Michigan Avenue downtown, according to his lawyer Walter Maksym, one of Drew Peterson’s lawyers in his pending murder case.
“It’s not going to have firearms [on display] or bullets [for sale], and you’ll have to have an FOID card to get in,” Maksym said. “There would be a secure area and after you look at some videos, you can pick out a gun you are interested in and a security guard will bring it in to view.”
Maksym noted you would need an FOID card to see and handle and guns. You would then order the gun and come back to get it later after a background check is conducted.
Here is where it gets interesting. Not only is Mr. Zieman seeking restitution for his confiscated handguns but he indicates that he will seek class action status for the lawsuit as well as restitution on behalf of all other Chicago gun owners who had handguns confiscated under the old law.
The lawsuit is being brought under the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution as well as relevant sections of the Illinois Constitution.
You can read the full complaint here.
UPDATE: The Chicago Tribune ran a story today on the Second Amendment Arms lawsuit. Various law professors and other lawyers are quoted concluding that the new law may not be “bullet proof”.
Wisdom from Sheriff Jim
Sheriff Jim Wilson made the following observation on his Facebook page:
Okay, here’s what we do…we keep the good looking spy chick and give them Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton! Fair deal?
Anna Chapman
Lindsay Lohan
Paris Hilton
I have to agree with Sheriff Jim on this one! Besides, Anna Chapman, the good looking spy chick, is probably orders of magnitude smarter than the other two put together.
I’ll Side with John Bingham, Thank You Very Much
Dave Hardy has an interesting observation on the dissenters on the McDonald and Heller cases. He notes that taken as a whole, their position is closer to that of Jefferson Davis.
Combined with McDonald…. the “liberal” wing embraces Jefferson Davis, the “conservative” wing embraces John Bingham.
Perhaps we could suggest that in the future, the dissenters refer to 1861-65 as The War of Northern Aggression and the majority refer to it as The War of the Rebellion.
John Bingham, a 19th Century Republican Congressman from Ohio, is known for his role as the principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is thought that he intended the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights to apply to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Paper Recognizes Futility of NC’s Emergency Powers Gun Ban
The Greensboro Daily News ran an editorial yesterday regarding the emergency powers gun ban that is being challenged by Alan Gura, the Second Amendment Foundation, and Grass Roots NC. They strongly suggested that the state change the law so that it didn’t get to the Supreme Court like the McDonald case.
The unsigned editorial noted that:
Surely, legislators had something else in mind other than banning guns in cold weather when they wrote this measure decades ago. And it certainly would not be worth enforcing this law, except when someone is using the gun to commit a crime — stealing firewood, maybe.
From my research of the time period when this bill was first passed, I think the General Assembly intended to keep firearms out of the hands of demonstrators and civil rights protesters in the late 1960s.
The Daily News concluded:
There should be a compelling reason why someone who is the legal owner of a firearm should be barred from carrying it from his home to a shooting range, even if the governor has declared a state of emergency because of cold weather. That might make sense in some kinds of emergencies — a breakdown of civic order, for example — but the law should make distinctions. The blanket prohibition doesn’t seem justified, and the state should stipulate that it is not enforceable as it’s written.
This case isn’t one that should go all the way to the Supreme Court for resolution.
They are most certainly correct that this is a case in which the State of North Carolina should fold and fold quickly.
Concealed Carry, the First Amendment, and an Iowa Sheriff
U. S. District Court Judge Mark Bennett ordered Osceola County, Iowa Sheriff Douglas Weber to issue a concealed carry permit to Paul Dorr because the court found that Sheriff Weber had infringed Mr. Dorr’s First Amendment rights. Judge Bennett did not stop there. He ordered Sheriff Weber to take a college-level course involving the First Amendment.
Judge Bennett was quite colorful in concluding the Sheriff Weber had violated Mr. Dorr’s rights:
The court finds a tsunami, a maelstrom, an avalanche, of direct, uncontroverted evidence in Sheriff Weber’s own testimony to conclude beyond all doubt that he unquestionably violated the First Amendment rights of at least Paul Dorr.
Paul Dorr is a political activist who has been active in both the pro-life movement and the movement to lower government expenses. He had previously had an Iowa “nonprofessional permit to carry a weapon” (the equivalent of a concealed carry permit in Iowa) from the late 1990s until 2006. Thought he thought Mr. Dorr “weird”, Sheriff Weber had approved his permit in 2005 and 2006.
In 2007, however, Sheriff Weber denied Mr. Dorr’s permit writing on the application “Concern from Public. Don’t trust him.” The sheriff thought Mr. Dorr was “weird” and had heard many comments from the general public saying essentially the same thing. He also told Mr. Dorr that he wouldn’t approve any further permits for him.
What had changed in 2007 was that Mr. Dorr was engaged by the Osceola County Taxpayers Association (OCTA) to provide consulting services which included investigating government expenditures, writing and distributing leaflets, and writing letters to the editor. In particular, the OCTA was concerned with the expenditures of the public safety commission and the county attorney’s office. They felt the size of the expenditures were out of line for a county of the size of Osceola and one of the agencies they were concerned about was the Sheriff’s Office.
Judge Bennett said, in his opinion, that:
Giving Sheriff Weber more deference than is due his elected status, the court finds that Sheriff Weber denied Paul’s application for a concealed weapons permit not because of the content of his First Amendment activity but because it was effective and agitated many members of the local community. Had Paul passed out flyers at 2:00 a.m. in a public park where no one was there to receive them, used a bullhorn deep in the woods where no one could hear him advocate his sometimes unorthodox views, or written letters to the editor in the Washington Post where few, if any, residents of Osceola County would read them, then Sheriff Weber would have granted Paul the permit. Paul was denied a permit precisely because Sheriff Weber believed that his free speech rights offended the majority of voters in Osceola County.
Because of this, the court “having found Paul (Dorr) proved a claim of First Amendment retaliation, will order Sheriff Weber to reconsider, and approve, Paul’s application for a concealed weapons permit.” Mr. Dorr’s son Alexander was also a party to the suit but is only 20 years old. Given Alexander’s age, the court found Sheriff Weber was within his discretion to deny him a permit.
In my opinion, here is where it gets really interesting. Districts Courts have substantial leeway to order remedial training to ensure that such violations don’t take place again.
Sheriff Weber’s dramatic and stunning failure to appreciate, and to protect and defend, Paul’s basic First Amendment rights, compels remedial relief.
The court provides Sheriff Weber with the following guidelines concerning the class
that he must complete. First, the class must provide college level instruction on the United States Constitution, including—at least in part—a discussion of the First Amendment. The class may be taken online. Second, Sheriff Weber must obtain approval from the court before participating in the class. Approval must be obtained by filing, with the Clerk of Court, a motion for approval of the proposed class, which must contain a description of the class and contact information for the court to further inquire, if necessary, into the substance of the class. Third, upon completion of the class, Sheriff Weber must file an affidavit with the Clerk of Court stating that he has successfully completed the class. Sheriff Weber shall attach his transcript or other proof of completion to the affidavit—Sheriff Weber must obtain a passing grade or obtain an otherwise satisfactory assessment of his participation in the class.
According to the Sioux City Journal,
Dorr said Wednesday that he was pleased “justice is served. I get my permit back and the sheriff is being sent back to school. The harm done by Sheriff Weber against the 6th and 9th commandments has been made right.”
I have posted the entire opinion in Scribd and it makes for interesting reading.