On Sunday, the Washington Post ran a story on Raymond Woollard who is challenging Maryland’s concealed carry law. Today, they have a story entitled “Gun-toting soccer moms a scary thought in D.C. area, but not out west”. Did someone spike the water cooler in the Post’s newsroom?
The story is well worth reading and is remarkable for its relatively non-judgmental attitude towards firearms and firearm owners.
H/T Instapundit.
An exercise regimen called parkour. Supposedly used in training by some “high-end” groups in the US military.
All I can say is that I wish I still had that level of agility. As it is, if I tried that, I’d be in physical rehab for months!
H/T to Rob Curtis, Military Times Gear Scout
From the KitUp blog at Military.com.
The Special Ops community are being told to shave the beards and ditch the khaki ballcaps with skull and crossbone patches.
Beards in a Muslim society help them blend in with the rest of the population. I wonder which politician in ACU camo came up with this rule.
Spec Ops to Say Bye Bye to Beards (Again)… | Kit Up!
Steve Gibson, founder of RightHaven LLC, must live in an another universe.
He was interviewed by Joe Mullin for the Corporate Counsel section of Law.com in an article that appeared yesterday. He seemed a bit bewildered by all the attention that his lawsuits have gathered. He goes on to say:
“It’s unbelievable,” says Gibson. “There appears to be a groundswell of interest in our business model.”
He says that like he thinks every intellectual property lawyer in the world now wants to form another RightHaven LLC to sue as many bloggers as they can find in order to become rich and famous. Earth to Steve – you aren’t considered a model but rather a pariah by most in the legal and journalism communities.
Mark Hinueber, general counsel of Stephens Media, joins Gibson in this alternate reality fantasy when he notes:
“My hope,” says Hinueber, “is we will raise awareness of copyright laws, and have more links back to our site, and have less of our material infringed on the Internet.”
While Hinueber may be correct that that they have raised awareness of copyright law, he is a fool to think that bloggers will link to the Las Vegas Review-Journal. If anything, it and the rest of the Stephens Media chain are being actively boycotted by bloggers. Less of the LVRJ’s material will be “infringed” because no one is going to touch it.
To paraphrase the Las Vegas Tourism motto – What happens in Vegas, needs to stay in Vegas.
UPDATE: TechDirt has a post with much the same response I had to the Law.com article.
An amended complaint was filed Friday, August 13th, in the NRA’s challenge to Chicago’s new gun laws. The case, Benson et al v. Chicago et al, was originally filed on July 6th. The original complaint can be found here.
So what has changed? While most of the complaint stays the same, word for word, additional plaintiffs have been added, the number of counts have been reduced, and the count against the gun list has been dropped in favor of a new emphasis against the restrictions on lawful transportation.
1. Two new plaintiffs added.
Michael Hall, Sr. of Chicago and Rick Pere of Round Lake, Illinois have been added as plaintiffs. Mr. Hall is a 52-year-old Chicago resident, married with 5 kids, a Marine veteran, hunter, and works in the telecommunications industry. The complaint notes that he often works from home and that his truck has been burglarized twice while sitting in his driveway.
Mr. Pere is self-employed as a police-firearms and security-firearms instructor. He served as a police officer in various Illinois municipalities for over 15 years. In addition, he has over 30 years of service in the U.S. Army, Illinois Army National Guard, and the U.S. Air Force Reserves. He has also served as a military contractor in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Haiti. He wants to be able to open a shooting range in Chicago where he could offer firearms training instruction as well as sell firearms.
2. Stylistic Changes
The amended complaint still retains most of the original complaint word for word. It has updated the references to the McDonald decision to include the actual Supreme Court citation instead of the slip opinion.
Stylistically, it has tightened up some of the language and clarified other things. One major change is to include the race of the plaintiffs living in the City of Chicago. While this does serve to illustrate the racial diversity of the plaintiffs, it feels cumbersome. Unless I am missing something, I think illustrating the racial diversity of the plaintiffs could have been done just as well, if not better, by the use of press releases and having the plaintiffs available for media interviews.
3. Consolidated Number of Counts
The original complaint as filed had eight counts. This number has been reduced to five in the amended complaint. Counts II, VI, and VII were dropped in their entirety. The old Count II challenged the age restrictions in the Chicago. Count VI challenged the “unsafe handgun” portion of the ordinance. Finally, Count VII challenged the banning of laser sight accessories.
4. Dropped challenges to age restriction, unsafe handgun list, and laser sights.
The amended complaint dropped all challenges to the age 21 restriction to obtain a Chicago Firearm Permit (CFP). As currently written, the ordinance does allow those between the ages of 18 and 21 to obtain a CFP if they have written permission of a parent or legal guardian and the parent or guardian is not prohibited by obtaining either a CFP or an Illinois FOID card. I am speculating that dropping this challenge may have been because under Federal law one must be 21 to purchase a handgun from a dealer.
Likewise, the challenges to both the unsafe handgun list and laser sights were dropped in the amended complaint. Given that some states like California and Massachusetts have approved handgun lists, the decision may have been made to wait to challenge this part of the ordinance. The California handgun list is currently by challenged in the case of Pena v. Cid. That case has been stayed pending the outcome of the 9th Circuit’s decision in Nordyke v. King. I don’t know why the laser sight and accessory complaint was dropped except that it was a minor part of the original complaint.
5. New emphasis on lawful transportation.
While the original complaint did mention the ability to transport a firearm from one location to another – lawful transportation – the emphasis on this was lost in the mix. The amended complaint puts new emphasis on this and mentions it specifically in their request for a declaratory judgment and for injunctive relief against the new ordinance. In the descriptive part of the complaint, more verbiage has been added to describe the plaintiff’s desire to “transport” firearms between Chicago and other locations outside of the city.
There is also an added emphasis on the one working gun per CFP per household requirement along with the restrictions on the definition of “home” being within the four walls. The complaint mentions that Mr. Hall wants to be able to provide self-defense for all of his property and not just within the home. Moreover, the complaint goes into detail on the risk a homeowner faces from a home invasion and argues that the one working gun provision increases the risk.
I have embedded the amended complaint below:
Benson et al v. Chicago et al – Amended Complaint
The Washington Times ran a story today describing how the Chinese are rapidly building up their armed forces beyond what would be needed to defend themselves or to attack Taiwan. This is, of course, an important story.
However, when I saw the picture below of a Chinese missile-carrying truck, I cracked up. Whitewalls? The People’s Liberation Army has trucks with whitewall tires? Bwahahahahahahaha.
According to a post on military.com, FNH-USA has announced that the Special Operations Command has approved the SCAR line of weapons for “full rate production”. This includes both the SCAR-17, the SCAR-16, and the Mk-13 grenade launcher.
From ACQuipedia, the online Acquisition Encyclopedia, full-rate production is defined as:
The second effort of the Production and Deployment (P&D) phase defined and established by DoDI 5000.2. This effort follows a successful Full Rate Production Decision Review (FRPDR). The system is produced at rate production and deployed to the field or fleet. This phase overlaps the Operations and Support (O&S) phase since fielded systems are operated and supported (sustained) while Full Rate Production (FRP) is ongoing.
Since that definition is about as clear as mud, let me translate that into normal English. What this means is that the SCAR system has gone through development, testing, and then limited production for use in the field. Before it could be approved for “full-rate production”, the SCAR system had to go through a review process called the “Full Rate Production Decision Review”.
This was a go/no-go point at which a negative decision would mean that the SCAR rifle wasn’t going to be deployed to SOCOM. Authorization for full-rate production means that the SCAR rifle system is going into full production for deployment to the field. The next stage after this will be “sustainment” where extra’s and spare parts are produced to keep the system going.
A semi-readable explanation of the whole process can be found here. See page 7 in particular. All I can say is thank God for my degree in Project Management for allowing me to somewhat understand what they were trying to say!
UPDATE: Here is a link to FNH-USA’s press release courtesy of The Outdoor Wire.
UPDATE II: Apparently, the “full-rate production” of the SCAR rifle does NOT include the SCAR-L which is the 5.56 version. It only applies to the SCAR-H (in 7.62), sniper variants, and the grenade launcher. This is according to reports from the KitUp blog and statements made on another forum by a FNH-USA spokesman.
From the Second Amendment Foundation announcing their lawsuit against the City of Chicago for banning gun ranges:
SAF SUES CHICAGO OVER GUN RANGE PROHIBITION ON 1A, 2A GROUNDS
For Immediate Release: 8/16/2010
CHICAGO, IL – The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) today filed a lawsuit in federal court against the City of Chicago’s new gun ordinance, asserting that “by banning gun ranges open to the public…under color of law,” the city is depriving citizens of their right to keep and bear arms in violation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Joining SAF in this lawsuit are the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA), Action Target, Inc., and three individual plaintiffs including a retired Chicago police detective. They are represented by attorneys Alan Gura of Virginia and David Sigale of Chicago, who teamed up with SAF and ISRA on the landmark case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, which incorporated the Second Amendment to the states, effectively striking down Chicago’s 28-year-old handgun ban.
“While the city has adopted new regulations that make it legal to own handguns,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “they have crafted this new ordinance to make it virtually impossible for prospective gun owners to meet all legal requirements unless they travel outside the city for mandatory training. The new ordinance prohibits public gun ranges inside the city yet the city demands that handgun owners get at least one hour of range training time.
“This is a ‘Catch-22’ scenario,” he continued, “that seems deliberately designed to discourage Chicago residents from exercising their firearm civil rights barely two months after those rights were restored by the Supreme Court.”
Individual plaintiffs are Rhonda Ezell, a victim of three attempted burglaries who has disabilities making it difficult for her to travel outside the city; Joseph Brown, a WWII U.S. Army veteran who was among the liberators of the infamous Dachau concentration camp, and William Hespen, a retired police detective, all of whom must qualify for Chicago Firearms Permits.
Action Target, a Utah-based company, builds shooting ranges and manufactures gun range equipment and supplies. It has a long history of providing gun safety equipment and training, and has previously built law enforcement shooting ranges in Chicago. However, Action Target is prohibited from building a public target range within the city’s limits under the restrictions of the new gun ordinance.
Randy Graham, vice president of Action Target, said, “We believe that citizens have a constitutional right to use and train with firearms in a safe and controlled environment. As a leader in the firearms training industry, Action Target is committed to standing up for these rights.”
“By banning public gun ranges,” Gottlieb said, “and by banning the loan and rental of firearms at such ranges, Chicago is acting under color of law to deprive citizens of their right to keep and bear arms, and to conveniently receive the education required under the ordinance that is necessary to obtain a Chicago Firearms Permit. The city is violating both the Second and First amendments, and we are asking the court to put an end to this nonsense.”
UPDATE: Embedded below is the complaint in Ezell et al v. City of Chicago.
Ezell et al v. Chicago – Complaint
After the initial flurry of lawsuits being filed after the McDonald v. Chicago decision, there was a quiet period while we waited for responses by the defendant states and municipalities. Some of the firsts responses are starting to come in.
Bateman et al v. Perdue et al
This was the first of the post-McDonald cases filed. It directly challenged North Carolina’s “emergency powers” act which imposed restrictions on the sale of firearms and ammunition during a declared emergency as well as forbidding the possession of a firearms outside of a person’s residence.
On Wednesday of last week, Stokes County filed a motion to dismiss the case against them. In effect, they said they’d never banned firearms in their ordinances or proclamations and that they were not responsible for state law.
Then, on Friday, the State of North Carolina moved to dismiss the cases against Governor Perdue and Secretary of Crime Control and Public Safety Reuben Young. They are basing their claim on “Plaintiffs’ failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” They submitted 89 pages of exhibits with their motion.
Given the extensive nature of the exhibits, I will post a separate analysis of this later.
Benson et al v. City of Chicago et al
This is the suit brought by the National Rifle Association challenging the new Chicago gun laws that were enacted within days of the McDonald decision. The NRA has filed an amended complaint in this case as of August 13th.
I will post a comparison of the original complaint and the amended complaint as soon as I can.
Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association et al v. Lindley
This is one of the cases being brought in the State of California challenging AB 962, the Handgun Ammunition Sales Law. O-OIDA brought this suit on, among other grounds, that the new law violates the FAA Act of 1994.
All parties in the case have stipulated that that State of California has an additional 28 days in which to file a response to this complaint. This gives California until September 17th in which to file an answer.
Baker v. Biaggi et al
This is the case in which the State of Nevada State Parks are being sued by the Mountain States Legal Foundation over the issue of possession of firearms for self-protection. It seeks to have a tent declared a temporary residence in which a person would be permitted to have a firearm.
The Nevada Attorney General’s office has filed an Answer on behalf of three of the five defendants. Their Answer includes David Morrow, Administrator of Nevada State Parks; Eric Johnson, Nevada State Parks Fallon Regional Manager; and Andrew Bass, Park Supervisor I, Wild Horse State Recreation Area. Excluded in the Answer are Allen Biaggi, Director of the Nevada Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources, and Allen Newberry, Chief of Operations and Maintenance.
After an Answer has been received on behalf of the latter two, I will do an update on this case.
Mishaga v. Monken
This is a new case that has flown under the radar. It was filed at the end of July by the Mountain States Legal Foundation on behalf of Ellen Mishaga, an Ohio resident, against the head of the Illinois State Police for denying her a Firearms Owner Identification (FOID) card. Mrs. Mishaga contends that as a frequent visitor to the State of Illinois she is precluded under Illinois law from possessing a firearm for self-defense in a residence because she doesn’t have a FOID card. The only exceptions to the requirement to possess a FOID card are those there to attend a shooting competition or those who possess an Illinois non-resident hunting license. Neither of these exceptions applied to her. Accordingly, she applied for a FOID card and was denied twice because she doesn’t have an Illinois driver’s license or state ID card – both of which she is not eligible to possess.
I will have a more extensive and separate post on this case soon.
This case is being brought in U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois.
UPDATE: Welcome Instapundit readers!
The comparison of the original and amended complaint in Benson et al v. Chicago et al can be found here.
The post on Mishaga v. Monken, the case by an Ohio resident challenging Illinois’s FOID Card, is found here.
I am still working on the post about the motions to dismiss in the first post-McDonald case – Bateman et al v. Perdue et al.
In a surprisingly sympathetic article, the Washington Post examined the background of Raymond Woollard’s case against the State of Maryland over the denial of his concealed carry permit. The case, Woollard et al v. Sheridan et al, challenges the requirement of the State of Maryland that a person must show “apprehended danger” before being issued a concealed carry permit.
I examined the case back in July here. Mr. Woollard is joined in the case by the Second Amendment Foundation. Alan Gura is joined by Maryland attorney Cary Hansel as the attorneys of record. The case is being brought on both Second and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. One of the key arguments in the complaint is that “Individuals cannot be required to prove their “good and substantial reason” for the exercise of fundamental constitutional rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.”
The Washington Post article describes how Mr. Woollard was the victim of a home invasion on Christmas Eve 2002 and how long he had to wait for police assistance. Mr. Woollard has consistently said it took police 2 1/2 hours to arrive. The Baltimore County police dispute this but did acknowledge it was over an hour. They blamed the rural location, holiday staffing, and bad weather for the slow response time.
Woollard was initially granted a concealed carry permit after this incident which was renewed again in 2005. The intruder turns out to have been his son-in-law who, as the article notes, had “a history of depression, drug and alcohol abuse, and domestic violence.” They do not say whether the intruder is still married to Mr. Woollard’s daughter but do acknowledge that he had served time for violating his probation after the 2002 home invasion. Mr. Woollard said he had not previously publicly identified the intruder as he wanted to protect his daughter.
With regard to the need for concealed carry and response time of the police, Mr. Woollard notes:
“It’s up to me. Do you have to show a reason to have a driver’s license?” Woollard said. Under current law, the only people likely to carry guns are criminals who do not follow the law anyway, Woollard said. “And the police, as good as they are, show up after the fact.”
When asked for comment on the case, the Maryland State Police declined as it was an active case. However, the gun control group CeaseFire Maryland blew off the challenge to Maryland’s concealed carry law saying:
“Good luck to him,” spokesman Casey Anderson said. “I would have a hard time imagining that the Supreme Court is going to say you have a constitutional right to hide a firearm on your person.”
I seem to remember that Mayors Fenty and Daley made similar statements about constitutional rights and the Second Amendment before losing in Heller and McDonald cases respectively. I recommend reading the whole article to get more of the human details of this case.
by