Category: 2nd Amendment

I think Glenn Reynolds picks out the operative quote from the opinion in Bateman v. Perdue. This was the case about North Carolina’s emergency powers provision. This was a case done by Grassroots North Carolina, with Alan Gura as the attorney. You can read the opinion here. I’ll read it myself in more detail when I have time.

It looks like Bloomberg is putting up the money to fund lawyers to review self-defense laws around the country to challenge or change them.

In Maryland. John Richardson offers some analysis of the decision. My only analysis is this: Judge Legg, who decided this case, was put on the federal bench by world class RINO and gun banner George H.W. Bush. Just remember that if the contest comes down to a choice between Obama and Romney. There is a difference.

UPDATE: More here from the media.

UPDATE: Joe notes a quote from Judge Legg, and sends a nice donation to the Second Amendment Foundation. This was their case.

We’ve covered the works of Pat Wray here before. He’s an outdoor writer, who once ran unsuccessfully for NRA board, and is a “useful idiot” when it comes to giving anti-gun politicians hunting creeds. Here Mr. Wray is one again rearing his ugly head pretending that the right to keep and bear arms just doesn’t matter.

It’s hard for me to to believe this guy is this dense. Heller and McDonald are decided by a 1 vote margin, two of the five majority justices are pushing up there in age, and this guy seriously says “it’s hard for me to interpret Supreme Court nominees as an assault on my gun rights?” The Second Amendment is one vote away from being interpreted clear out of the Constitution, and as we’ve covered on this blog before, we’re looking at a flip of the coin, statistically, as to whether one of those justices dies off before the end of Obama’s second term. And that’s not even considering the possibility of retirements.

The question is, it this guy really not seeing it? Or is he helping lead the herd to the slaughter? I can forgive the former, but if it’s the latter, you can’t claim to be pro-Second Amendment, or give a whim about the right to keep and bear arms. I get that some people are liberal gun owners, and like Obama on other issues, but what’s wrong with just admitting that those other issues are more important to you than your RKBA, but acknowledging President Obama isn’t the best President in the world when it comes to gun rights. Signing two pro-gun measures attached to must pass bills does not a pro-gun record make. Supreme Court justices are the most important thing in this election, and Obama is guaranteed to put folks on the bench who will erase the Second Amendment.

From Professor Glenn Reynolds, “Second Amendment Penumbras, Some Preliminary Observations.” I encourage folks to go download a copy, even if you don’t get around to reading it, because it helps boost the profile of the paper so others are encouraged to read it.

Peterson v. Martinez is a case challenging some provisions of Colorado’s concealed handgun licensing laws:

As Denver has an an open carry ban (which it has sued the state to protect this ban under the state constitution’s home rule provisions and won in district court), the combination of this factor and the state’s law against concealed carry without license combined together to deny Peterson his right to carry a functional firearm for personal protection while visiting Denver.

Let me give you a bit of background on this case. First, this is an as applied challenge, meaning that Peterson is not contending that Colorado’s concealed handgun licensing laws are facially unconstitutional, but that they are unconstitutional as applied to him, and his particular circumstances. If Peterson prevails on his challenge, anyone else similarly situated, meaning anyone who is not a resident of Colorado, and does not have a reciprocal license, would be able to assert the same claim. It would, in effect, carve out an exception for everyone, and not just him.

Either way, Peterson lost in District Court, in a decision that can be found here:

Adam Winkler has become notable in our issue for pissing off both sides, which is a pretty good sign that he’s a moderate on the issue. But some of his assertions I don’t find persuasive, and others can be taken in such a way that they are misleading. Now it’s possible this individual is mis-stating something, but this is just wrong:

So it’s worth remembering: The gun lobby didn’t always lobby for free access to guns (particularly not for guns for African-Americans). And the folks who wrote the Second Amendment were all in favor of a “well-regulated militia” whose members — at that time, the general (white) populace — had to declare, register and present to government agents on a regular basis all of their firearms.

To the best of my knowledge there was never any requirement that people register their firearms with any colonial or early-American government. When turning out for muster, they would be expected to bring their personal arm, which they were required by law to own, and that arm could be inspected to ensure it was in serviceable condition, and that the individual had enough ammunition to comply with the requirements of the act. But it’s not like they punched serial numbers on guns back then. Serial numbers are actually relatively recent phenomena, I believe not in common practice until the 19th century, and even then not uniquely identifying until the mid-2oth century.

So equating the requirements of the various colonial or early American militia laws to the modern conception of universal registration is a bit disingenuous. No one in colonial times was keeping records of the guns owned by your average John Smith militia member. It’s certainly valid to suggest that the founding generation were strong believers in the militia requirements of the day, which compelled able bodied men (and sometimes women) to arm themselves, keep their firearms in serviceable condition, and report periodically for muster and drill. It’s also valid to suggest that many founders, who didn’t view African American as citizens, or even individuals imbued with the same human rights as white folk, understood that many laws at the time disarmed blacks. But I’m not sure how that should inform us about the validity of modern gun control any more than it should inform us about the validity of anti-miscegenation laws. The pretext for many of the laws whic barred non-citizens from firearms ownership are repugnant to modern society, so I’m not sure they ought to inform us as to whether many modern forms of gun control are fine.

It’s amazing how many anti-gun people just can’t move on:

Many are smart enough to see through the fog of the National Rifle Association. Many understand that the Second Amendment mentions a “well-regulated militia” because the right to bear arms is only within that context.

It is mentioned only in the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Therefore its mention is purposeful and within this context when guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms.

Nope, you lost this one. It’s done. Over. There’s no more debate. It’s not the National Rifle Association anymore, it’s the Supreme Court of the United States. There seems to be a concerted effort among our opponents to stick their heads in the sand and pretend they aren’t losing.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which encompasses Pennsylvania and New Jersey, has reversed a dismissal of an indictment that a housemate facilitated a felon’s possession of firearms. The courts argument would seem to be that since the charge was facilitating, not her own possession, the case should go to trial to discover the facts in the case. From a strictly legal reasoning point of view, I can understand where the court is coming from. But I’m uncomfortable with the ruling as the effect it will have on the rights of those who live with prohibited persons. Think about a battered spouse who seeks a firearm to protect herself in an abusive relationship with a convicted felon.

In this instance any spouse, domestic partner, or roommate of a prohibited person runs legal risk keeping a gun in the home for self-protection. If the prohibited individual is ruled to have been in possession, the housemate can also be charged. That seems like a poor way to treat someone’s constitutional rights.

I think in this case the court got it wrong. There needs to be evidence that the person purposefully helped aid in the possession of the prohibited person. Otherwise the housemate is deprived of their constitutional right without due process.