It took this long for all the races to be decided, but Dave Kopel has some final analysis with the help of Chuck Cunningham, ILA’s top federal lobbyist. It’s a good landscape to be working in. It’s interesting to see how few people are left who are soft on the issue, with most being either As or Fs.
Year: 2010
Justice Breyer on RKBA
Many thanks to Only Guns and Money for this video of Justice Breyer:
As John mentioned, “Justice Breyer was Bill Clinton’s gift to American jurisprudence.” I can never understand the man’s logic here, or on many things. So because the Second Amendment is of questionable scope, we ought to read it out of the Bill of Rights? The Courts have successfully defined the scope of every other amendment, and with the possible exception of the fourth, have somehow manages to set appropriate boundaries. And how does the right have any meaning if you can’t exercise it in the sanctity of your own home?
Another Bandwagon I Won’t Jump On
Joel Rosenberg seems to have gotten himself arrested for carrying in a courthouse complex. The Minnesota legislature was less than abundantly clear when it prohibited carry in courthouse complexes, but the case against Mr. Rosenberg is going to hinge on this:
Subd. 1g.Felony; possession in courthouse or certain state buildings.
(a) A person who commits either of the following acts is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both:(1) possesses a dangerous weapon, ammunition, or explosives within any courthouse complex; or
(2) possesses a dangerous weapon, ammunition, or explosives in any state building within the Capitol Area described in chapter 15B, other than the National Guard Armory.
(b) Unless a person is otherwise prohibited or restricted by other law to possess a dangerous weapon, this subdivision does not apply to:
[…]
(2) persons who carry pistols according to the terms of a permit issued under section 624.714 and who so notify the sheriff or the commissioner of public safety, as appropriate;
There seems to be some dispute as to whether the office was notified. Rosenberg and his wife said they called. The warrant issued says there was never notification. If someone wanted to challenge this ordinance, the proper thing to do would have been to provide notice through certified mail, with return receipt, so there would be some means of proving in a court of law that you complied with the requirement. Never trust that the police are going to tell the truth! Now it’s going to be his word against the police that he complied with the statute. Who do you think the jury will believe? The courts, probably the same courts that issued the court order contrary to state law, will also get to decide what constitutes notification under the statute.
In short, I think Rosenberg is screwed. That doesn’t mean he’s wrong, but it does mean he wasn’t careful. I am not saying Rosenberg was wrong for challenging the law, nor am I saying he needs to lick the boots of the authorities, but if you’re going to set up to challenge a law, or unlawful court order, you need to line your ducks up very precisely, because failure to do so means court precedent the rest of us have to live with.
So I’m not going to jump on his bandwagon. He’s got guts, I’ll give him that, but so do protesters who light themselves on fire. A lot of people make the mistake of thinking the law is black and white. In most cases, it’s not. The law is what a court says the law is. Much like politics, this is a game, and also much like politics, if it is not played carefully, and with skill, everyone loses. I indeed hope Rosenberg has a good lawyer in this, because he’s going to need one. There’s probably no Second Amendment to appeal to either, because it’s a prohibition in court complexes, which would seem to easily pass Heller‘s “sensitive places,” language. It’s all pretty much going to hinge on that notice.
UPDATE: In the comments, it would seem that Mr. Rosenberg does have written evidence that the law was complied with. If he does, it will make his defense attorney’s job a lot easier.
Constitutional Carry
From NRA’s legislative agenda for Iowa in 2011:
“Constitutional Carryâ€
Building on NRA’s “Constitutional Carry†successes in Alaska and Arizona, NRA is making a strong push for more “Constitutional Carry†states around the country, including Iowa.  The proposed legislation would allow individuals who lawfully possess firearms—meaning individuals who are not federally prohibited from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving a firearm—to either open or conceal carry without a permit. The new shall-issue permit system would remain in place, for those who wish to carry concealed in states that recognize Iowa’s permit, but residents who legally qualify would no longer be subject to the permit process to carry concealed in state.
Looks like they will also be pushing a RKBA amendment to the Constitution in Iowa. I like the 2011 agenda, but I was particularly glad to see constitutional carry is now going big time. All it takes is winning in one larger state to get the ball rolling. The language would also seem to indicate that the effort will not be contained to just Iowa. As I said before, in Tennessee, Haslam opened the door to this issue there, it’s just a matter of trying to walk through it.
Atlanta Surrenders
They’ve decided they can no longer prohibit carry in non-sterile areas of Hartsfield-Jackson airport. Thank goodness this issue is behind us.
How About That?
MAIG Mayor Bradley Convicted
I reported earlier in November on the trial of Mayor Adam Bradley of White Plains, who is a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Or maybe that was Illegal Mayors Against Guns, or something like that. He has apparently been convicted of his crimes involving domestic violence. There was also some issues earlier in the year with Mayor Bradley that involved witness tampering, but he was found not guilty on those charges.
A Basis for Gun Control?
Hard as I try to just let her be, Common Gunsense is the blog that keeps on giving. There’s no end to the ridiculous things emanating from our favorite Brady Board Member’s keyboard, and here is the latest thing:
Educated people shoot people as often as those poor uneducated people. I wonder why the gun lobby prefers not to believe that? Does it get in the way of their trying to convince us that most homicides are committed by criminals? Most homicides occur among people who know each other and often the shooter was not a criminal until he/she pulled the trigger.
We prefer not to believe it, because it’s simple just not true. Let’s look at what this study has to say on education and recidivism:
Inside our prisons, 19% percent of adult inmates are illiterate, and up to 60% are functionally illiterate. In contrast to this, our national adult illiteracy rate stands at 4%, with up to 23% functionally illiterate.
Or this study, which also shows that crime among more highly educated people tends to drop sharply. In fact, there’s no shortage of studies done by education advocates that show an inverse relationship to education levels and violent crime. As for homicides, there were 14,180 homicides in 2008, and of those, 44% of them authorities were unable to determine a relationship. Homicide among intimates represents only about 17% of the total. The largest category in “people who know each other” are acquaintances. It’s worthwhile pointing out that this would include the drug dealer capping a rival drug dealer.
As for the assertion that most murderers being non-criminal, that is also bunk. See this DOJ study on the matter, and we find:
- 54% have at least one felony conviction
- 70% have at least one conviction
- 56% have two or more felony arrests
- 67% have at least one felony arrest
- 81% of all homicide defendants have at least one arrest on their record
Now an arrest shouldn’t count for purposes of denying someone their rights, but it’s interesting data. This would suggest that no, the people who pull the trigger are largely already criminals.
Sorry Joan, but we don’t believe it because it’s not true. If you’re going to advocate for your ideas to be the basis of public policy, I think it’s imperative to argue from the right set of facts. Those facts just don’t support your conclusions.
Governor Christie on Brian Aitken
There’s been a lot of news in the Brian Aitken case lately. First there was a rally planned, then there wasn’t a rally planned. Then people started speculating what was up. I’ve been trying to get information on what’s going on. People are being very tight lipped, but there are many people working to get this guy some justice, and not all of it can be publicly broadcast. Governor Christie has this to say about the petition for clemency:
Needless to say this is a delicate matter. Anyone who’s followed Gov. Christie knows this isn’t a guy you can just push around. I’d like to think the Governor wants to do the right thing here, and issue a pardon, but wants to make sure he has his ducks lined up. The fact that this has appeared on the Governor’s own YouTube channel is hopefully a positive sign that he is at least taking this matter under serious consideration. Let us hope he does the right thing.
Hat Tip to Ian Argent
How We Catch Terrorists
A lot of folks on the Internets aren’t too happy with how the FBI is catching terrorists these days, by seemingly manufacturing them. I can’t say it’s a perfect method for catching terrorists, but I’m not sure what they are doing isn’t the least evil of the options available. First off, suggesting that the FBI is manufacturing terrorists is probably a bit of a hyperbole. Generally speaking, what constitutes entrapment is pretty well defined, and if the FBI wants to have a case, they will be careful to avoid it. So what are the elements of entrapment?
- The idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.
- Government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.
- The person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.
If this turns out to be entrapment, I’ll jump on board in criticizing the FBI’s methods. But I don’t really like the idea of violent jihadis wandering around the United States, with only a lack of materials standing between themselves and the next Oklahoma City. If you think about it, the alternatives are probably worse than what the FBI is doing. What alternatives would there be?
- More controls over explosives and explosive precursors. Given how many chemicals are explosive precursors, this method doesn’t enthuse me. Plus, much like gun control, it’s not going to stop someone determined. But it will definitely be annoying for people who lawfully use explosives or their precursors.
- More domestic spying. If you’re going to keep close enough eye on them to catch them when they finally do hook up with Ahmed the Truck Bomb Maker, you’ll need to keep a close watch on them and anyone they associate with. Without thinking about the manpower issues involved here, it’ll be a big problem if one of these jihadists manage to slip away from his FBI watchers after securing an uncomfortable amount of Semtex.
- Widen the GWOT to ensure terrorists have no places to train, hide, or get radicalized. This would be my preferred option, but it’s not politically or economically feasible. You’d have to send troops into Pakistan, Lebanon, Iran, and Yemen. The only way we’re paying for such an expansion of military action is either through massive tax hikes or adding even more to our deficit. That still doesn’t stop the problem of people who are already over here and already radicalized.
- Doing nothing as long as terrorism is a low level problem. I’d probably be OK with this too, but the first time one of these guys manages to get his hands on something and executes another Oklahoma City, I can promise you there will be all kinds of restrictions put on not only explosives and precursors, but many civil liberties.
- Institute extreme violations of civil liberties for Muslim Americans. I don’t find this option to be remotely acceptable, and don’t think anyone else should either.
So as much as it might feel better if we catch terrorists just before they are about to trigger the detonator on the truck bomb Ahmed built, setting the bar at that height seems to have an awful potential for someone actually pulling it off before agents can intervene. You can’t just think of what your reaction would be to a potential truck bombing. You have to think of what the now frightened population is going to let the civil servants get away with, and it can be guaranteed they will try to get away with as much as they can. Last time we went through this, our wonderful civil servants almost ended model rockery as a hobby in the United States, among other things.
So for now, provided the FBI isn’t unlawfully entrapping people, I’m fine with the FBI hooking up people who have the will to commit violent jihad with what they think is the means, and then busting them. It’s probably the lesser of available evils at the moment. It’s not the explosives that are dangerous, but the jihadist who has no issues murdering men, women and children as they go about their daily lives that’s dangerous. That’s generally been our philosophy when arguing against gun control right?