Arms and the Law

The homicide rate is greatly up, at least in major cities, tho any push for gun control is unlikely because left/progressives/whatever are insisting that it really isn't a bad thing. They have to, because it's coming hot on the heels of their BLM, defund the police, end bail, etc. campaigns.

Something I noticed years ago, and haven't kept up on or researched more recently, is that accidental automobile deaths tend to parallel homicide trends. Sure enough, in the first half of 2021, auto fatalities rose by 18%, the largest increase since they've kept records.

It's even more BS. He didn't pull the trigger. It was a Colt single action Army, I think, which means he cocked it and pointed it at someone, at a minimum. If he let the hammer loose before it was fully cocked, the safety notch or the half-cock notch should have prevented firing. Those have been known to fail, but that's just another reason not to get stupid with a firearm.

Story here. The police academy has a gun store. and it turns out the manager has been selling a lot of guns "off the books." quite a few to officers.
One of California's more stupid restrictions is that only handguns on the state safety roster can be sold new at retail. Qualifying for the roster is expensive, and the manufacturer must pay, with the result that a lot of perfectly safe handguns are banned from sale. BUT the law exempts law enforcement (and if I recall, prosecutors). Obviously if it were really aimed at safety, why would you exempt law enforcement? Why would you want them to have unsafe items? But I digress.
The law does not, however, ban private sale or possession of non-roster guns. Thus there is a thriving trade in LEOs buying banned guns and then reselling them to non-LEOs.

An essay. Not so long ago, pro-gun liberals and Dems were a potent block. The 1986 Firearm Owners' Protection Act was sponsored by Harold Volkmer, later an NRA director, and passed by a Democratic House that rebelled against its leadership (a majority signed the petition to discharge the bill from Judiciary Committee). "Big John" Dingell was a pro-gun leader in the Senate. JFK and Hubert Humphrey were pro-gun. Today....

Update: An interesting article on how the criminal defense bar is starting to argue for the inherent injustice of gun control. Earlier, in NYSRPA, a group of public defenders filed an incredible brief on that theme.

Just glad it was Arizona State, and not U of AZ, my alma mater.

Good news! I know nothing about the PA governor, so don't know its chances there.

The prosecution closing arguments describe the rioters who were burning the town as "heroes" and Rittenhouse as an "active shooter" whom his attackers were trying to stop.

Story here. He's down in Mexico, and recognizes that the members of his parish need a little practical, if salty, advice. Pope Francis, take note!

Opinion here, from the Sixth Circuit. A win for GOA. A licensed dealer must perform background checks unless the buyer has a qualifying carrying permit. ATF initially ruled that Michigan permits qualified, then reversed itself. The District Court upheld ATF's position, but the 6th reversed and remanded for additional fact-finding. I wish the court had reached the Administrative Procedure Act issue, just because ATF has never been good at complying with the APA.

Commentary and video here.

The defense has made a motion for mistrial with prejudice (to re-trying the case). The standard for that is grounds for a mistrial plus proof the prosecution acted intentionally. Why? If a prosecutor is ill-prepared and his case is going down the drain, it's to his advantage to cause a mistrial, so he can start over.

The first time the judge chewed the prosecutor's posterior, the judge said something to the effect of, I don't know what you are trying to do here, which may suggest he was suspicious.

This time the prosecutor said he was acting in good faith, and the judge snapped "I don't believe you." It's probably gone from suspicion to belief.

The judge takes it under advisement, meaning he reserves the right to rule on it later, and warns the prosecutor not to let it happen again.

My guess: if it happens again, the judge will grant the mistrial with prejudice and a lot of findings about the prosecution motives, and how they kept screwing up even after he warned them. If it doesn't, the judge will wait for the verdict. If not guilty, no need to rule. If guilty, he grants a new trial.

Video here. Judge rips the prosecutor a new one, with good reason, and the prosecutor doesn't back down and apologize, but continues with a tone and body language that suggests defiance. Where did they get these people?

Story here. In its latest disaster, the attacker who was shot in the arm concedes that Rittenhouse did not shoot until after the attacker had pointed his own gun at him.

I'm hard put to figure how the prosecution's case could implode any further or faster. Rittenhouse was under attack by multiple persons, one of whom had been uttering lethal threats, he had fled from them, they cornered him, one fired a shot in the air and then aimed at him. It isn't a close question, and we are still in the prosecution's own case!

I've been practicing 46 years, and have never seen a case, civil or criminal, collapse like this. Any good attorney would have seen it coming, and dismissed or settled.

A fundraising text they sent out right after the Supreme Court argument in NYSRPA, saying that if the good guys win everyone will be free to shoot a gun anywhere (so send us $$).

Carjacker stops to steal ammo from a Walmart, is captured by a concealed carry good guy.

Via Instapundit: Prosecutor has eyewitness to the shooting on re-direct. He starts asking, over and over with different wording, "you don't know what was in the mind of the rioter who got shot, do you?" He asks once too often.

"Q. You can't read Rosenbaum's mind, right? You can't know what he was actually thinking, right? Your interpretation of his intent is nothing but complete guesswork, isn't that right?

A. Well, he said 'Fuck you,' and then he reached for the weapon."

Ooops.

Story here. I won't say it crashed and burned, because it didn't get into the air in the first place. First two witnesses say the fellow who was shot was being hyper aggressive and threatening lethal harm, had set fires, he had chased Rittenhouse down and was trying to grab his gun away.

This is not a good beginning to a prosecutor's case.

John Lott reports that permits to carry concealed are way up. They've increased by 10% in the last year, and 48% over the last five years, despite the fact that 21 states now have no permit requirement and thus do not report their numbers.

I've had a theory: the US was always a nation of gunnies. The experience of the 60s (three assassinations, more attempts, riots and skyrocketing crime) was enough to depress this, but 50 years later we are returning to the norm.

Here's his Twitter page, with multiple postings over the last few days. The long and the short of it: safe gun handling on a movie set involves even more redundancies than does safe gun handling in general. The only way the Baldwin shooting could have occurred was (1) many, many screwups (starting with just having real cartridges on a set when actors are supposed to shoot blanks) or (2) nobody gave a hoot about gun safety at all.

Back in action at last, just in time to post the transcript of oral argument!

Listened to it this morning. Paul Clement, for NYSRPA, had a good but somewhat shaky opening. Then the Solicitor General spoke, VERY shaky and uncertain. Turns out she was just made SG last week, after being an acting since January, background clerking for judges but only one year of practice. Then New York's attorney spoke, reasonably well. Then Clement gave a really excellent rebuttal.

NY's defense seemed to focus on: there's a wide variation in conditions around the state, from rural counties to packed cities and their subways. The present system lets local officials decide and be flexible. A counter was -- is there any other fundamental right where we let licensing officials be arbitrary because conditions vary?

According to this report, the gun in question had "misfired" (maybe they mean malfunctioned) several times before, but was kept in action. Still, this sounds like a case of a live regular round going off. Whatever it was completely penetrated one person and went on to seriously injure another. But what fool would allow a regular cartridge anywhere near a set like that?