Arms and the Law

Judge refuses to continue trial date so ATF witness can travel to see eclipse.

Post here.

The US military is buying M-4 replacements chambered in 7.62 NATO, because they need its penetration and range.

John Stossel has the interviews.

So Ceasefire announces this will be a weekend without homicides in Baltimore. They'll hold rallies and whatnot to promote peace.

The result:

"But even as ceasefire events continued late Saturday afternoon and into the evening, police reported three shootings, two of them fatal."

Police respond to report of cat in a tree carrying an assault rifle.

I don't care how responsible a feline seems to be, never give him a loaded semiautomatic firearm.

Story here.

I'm sure Virginia Citizens Defense League is breaking out the champagne, after the way she deceptively edited footage of their members in a "documentary."

Story here. Allentown mayor Ed Pawlowshi is charged with fifty counts of corruption-related charges, bribery, and with gaining $150,000 in "pay to play" schemes. Former Reading mayor Vaughn Spencer is charged with a dozen counts.

According to the US Attorney, "The mayor of Allentown and the former mayor of Reading charged in the two indictments unsealed today sold their offices to the highest bidder -- violating the trust and confidence of the citizens of their cities. Both mayors, working with other corrupt officials and businesspeople, directed lucrative contracts to companies who agreed to provide campaign contributions in exchange for work."

Here. By Prof. Joseph Blocker, who in Heller assisted in the briefing for the other side, the D of C.

Hat tip to Alice Beard....

Four "scientific journals" agree to publish an article explaining how The Force in Star Wars is created by sub-cellular creatures, with a digression on the death of Darth Plagueis, Lord of the Sith.

First I'd heard of the "stop snitching movement" encourages people (inner city residents mostly) to refrain from telling police about criminals, and gives clear threats as to what happens if they disobey.

I only heard about the movement because one of the stars of its video had had a second son murdered. The second son was recently released after charges of murder were dropped against him; the father is still in prison on assault charges. The first son's murder has yet to be solved...

"Bald Eagle Threat: Lead Ammo Left Behind by Hunters". In New York, "Nine bald eagles were confirmed as lead-poisoning deaths in 2016, and seven so far this year."

"Trump Inflates Wind Turbine Eagle Deaths." "Smallwood says about 100 eagles die each year [in California] due to impacts with the spinning blades on windmills." "By the way, bald eagle deaths appear to be rare. Also, as a species, there is less concern because their population, about 70,000, is growing, while the population of golden eagles, about 20,000, is at best holding steady and could be declining."

When worked at Interior, a quarter century ago, I was told that bird deaths due to wind farms were massive, but orders were to do and say nothing, because wind power was fashionable. Hmmmm...

To settle the question "do guns kill?" 2ndVote has created streaming video of a Ruger LC9.

One obviously problem is that the LC9 won't commit violent crimes if it knows it is being watched.

To be sure, this comes as no surprise.

A while ago, the military determined that using the Sierra Matchking bullet, with an "open point" as opposed to a hollow point, would not violate the Hague Declaration.

To the best of my knowledge, neither al-Quadea nor ISIS are signatories to that treaty. They can't be, since they are not nation-states.

The powers that be have tended to present the fight against them as rather law enforcement in nature: the objective is to "bring them to justice" rather than to kill them.

If that is the case, then domestic law enforcement is allowed to use hollow points (and every officer with any sense does so). Armed robbers, etc., are also not signatories to treaties. OK, why can hollow points be used against American criminals, but not against the enemy?

Now, this fellow is straightforward. Though I'd probably prefer Massad Ayoob as an expert witness.

Here. I think the real objection living constitutionalists have to originalism is that it frustrates judges' wills to power. Rather than conduct social engineering, they must execute the will of others (the framers, or framing generations, of 1788, 1791 and 1868).

But, as the framers themselves pointed out, that is precisely why they thought we could have a non-elected judiciary. Judges didn't stand for election, but they only carried out the will of those who did (the framers, or Congress).

Florida judge rules one aspect of "no retreat" (apparently, the fact that the prosecution bears the burden of disproving self-defense) is unconstitutional. Pretty far out in left field. The legislature cannot establish what is a defense to a criminal offense? Or it cannot determine who bears the burden of proof on that?

And as usual the media confuses "no retreat" with every aspect of self-defense. These cases involved who bears the burden of proof on self defense, not whether someone had a duty to retreat. Ditto for the Zimmerman case, where all the witnesses said that Zimmerman was on his back, pinned to the ground, at the moment he fired, and so had no way to retreat.

Here, in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. Some very good analysis. In 1934, they were treated as gangster weapons, although I don't ever recall hearing of gangsters using them. They tended to have their fights at pistol or shotgun range, not at 100+ yards. Originally the minimum barrel length was 18"; then the government discovered it had sold millions of M-1 carbines as surplus, and they had 16.5" barrels. So the minimum length was reduced to 16". Which did a nice job of showing how arbitrary it was.

It's a preliminary injunction, so no guarantees, but the option is here.

The opinion starts getting interesting at p. 16. At p. 26, the Court criticizes the evidence offered by the state. It sounds to me as if the state assumed it'd be a slam-dunk, no judge is going to enjoin the state no matter how sloppy our evidence, and so just threw a stack of paper at the judge.