Arms and the Law

Milwaukee police refuse to take their P320s home due to accidental discharges.

Update: There are skeptics.

Opinion here.

"Without the requirement of any input from a medical or mental health expert, the Court is required to make a determination of whether the respondent "is likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to himself, herself or others, as defined in... section 9.39 of the mental hygiene law" (CPLR § 6342[1]; CPLR § 6343[2]). Under Mental Hygiene Law § 9.39, a person's liberty rights cannot be curtailed unless a physician opines that the person is suffering from a condition "likely to result in serious harm." Further, in order to extend any such curtailment of liberty beyond 48 hours, a second doctor's opinion must be obtained and such opinion must be consistent with the first doctor's opinion. Absent from New York's Red Flag Law is any provision whatsoever requiring even a single medical or mental health expert opinion providing a basis for the order to be issued. New York's Red Flag Law, as currently written, lacks sufficient statutory guardrails to protect a citizen's Second Amendment Constitutional right to bear arms."

Story here. That makes permitless concealed carry the rule in a majority of states.

It's Worth v. Harrington, brought by SAF and FPC. Minnesota generally requires a permit to carry a handgun, and in 2003 the statute was amended to require that the applicant be 21 or older. The federal District Court strikes this down as violating the right to arms.

Good news! It took overriding a veto to get it done.

As far as claims that it was a "weapon of war," it turns out that ATF approved the semi-auto rifle for civilian sales years before the military adopted the M-16. Great detective and FOIA work by Len Savage and Stephen Stamboulieh.

Here's a report on the oral argument of five 2A cases on the same day. It sounds like the panel was very lively!

That's what he said. I guess it's a new prohibited person category.

Seekins v. United States. Defendant, a convicted felon given a four year sentence for possessing two shotgun shells, appeals on the basis of the Commerce Clause. The 5th Circuit upheld his conviction based on the argument (which most other circuits have accepted) that there is a sufficient connection with interstate commerce if the shells were shown to ever have moved in such commerce in the past.

United States v. Rahimi. Also a 5th Circuit case. The circuit struck down the prohibition on arms possession by persons subject to a domestic violence restraining order. The government took this one up since the facts are terrible for the defendant, who was a violent type who should've been behind bars.

Preliminary injunction granted. The case is Boland v. Bonta, Central District of California.

John Lott has found 35 of them.

Ilya Somin has some thoughts. I had much the same. If a state law simply says that state employees are not to assist in carrying out a federal law, that's perfectly permissible. As to any declarations the law might make, a fight over whether they are right or wrong is hardly "case or controversy."

...appears to be sunk. I don't agree with everything said (I like piston driven guns), but it makes sense. The ammunition seems like no one thought thru its cost or the fact that it requires tungsten from China. I'd add--the entire reason we and everyone else went to assault rifles was because rifles of full military power were uncontrollable in full auto fire. But if you dropped the power by half (from about 2600 ft-lbs to about 1300) it would be controllable. The new cartridge has a muzzle energy of 2200-2600 ft-lbs, so I doubt it would be controllable.

Add a two part cartridge case (head made of steel to withstand the higher pressure) and a projectile that requires tungsten... did anyone reflect that military ammo has to be made in incredible quantities, even in peacetime, let alone if war breaks out?

Opinion here. I might not agree with the result, but it is well-written and performs the historical inquiry required by Bruen. The method does highlight a core question: is it the initial popular understanding of 1791 or of 1868 that matters?

The reasoning is implicitly: the fact that a (state) restriction existed or was widespread at the relevant time establishes that it was seen as an exception to the right to arms. One limit on this reasoning is that the Supreme Court early on ruled that the federal bill of rights did not bind the states. Not long after the 14th Amendment was ratified, the Supreme Court eviscerated it. So state legislatures would have been adopting restrictions, not against the background of the Second Amendment, but against the background of their state bill of rights, and some contained no right to arms, or limited it to "for the common defense."

A Marine colonel, filing an affidavit in an "assault weapon" challenge, says a single .223 hit will cut a person in half, not to mention a lot of other things that suggests he hasn't the least understanding of firearms or ballistics.

Marine Corps to shut down scout/sniper program. It's not clear whether the entire program is being changed or just the title, deleting "sniper" from scout/sniper. But if the latter, since when did USMC concern itself with sounding pacific?

Chicago honors her legacy with a 21 murder salute.

Here is SAF's motion for summary judgment, via attorney David Sigale. It is VERY well written.

Here's a manuscript on the Bruen decision, written by Profs Brannon Denning and Glen Harlan Reynolds. Good insight and a very good read!

Story at The Reload. Brady brought a lawsuit on their behalf against gun dealers and manufacturers, trying to get around federal and state laws providing that you can't sue on a theory of "you sold the gun, so you are responsible for its criminal use." They lost, and Colorado law allows recovery of attorneys' fees.

Brady Campaign announced, "Nonprofits like Brady do not have the financial funds to pay for unsuccessful suits that clients decide to bring, which is why we always make clear to clients the financial risks involved in these lawsuits." Their clients had to file for bankruptcy.