Arms and the Law

The high point of the Battle of Waterloo. Commemorated yesterday with a major re-enactment.

I've read a few sources that argue that Wellington spent the rest of his rewriting history, to play up the role of his army, and especially its British components, and play down the role of the Prussians, who were coming down on the French right flank, forcing Napoleon to divert part of his reserve against them, and to launch an attack on the Allied center with the remainder in an attempt to win before his time ran out.

1864 case, Chief Justice Taney sitting as circuit judge (in those days Justices did double-duty as circuit judges). In the opening days of the Civil War, the movement of Union troops down to defend Washington led to fatal rioting in Baltimore, where troops had to shift trains and move between train stations to do so. Lincoln reacted by authorizing Union commanders to suspend the writ of habeas corpus (and thus to take and prisoners without being subject to judicial action). The governor ordered militia units to destroy railroad bridges, and Union troops arrested a militia lieutenant Merryman for his role in that, and took him to Fort McHenry, in Baltimore harbor.

Right here. And the order itself is online here.

"It is apparent that this case was filed to pursue the political purposes of the Brady Center and, give the failure to present any cognizable legal claim, bringing these defendants into the Colorado court where the prosecution of James Holmes was proceeding appears to be more of an opportunity to propagandize the public and stigmatize the defendants than to obtain a court order which counsel should have known would be outside the authority of this court."

It's hard to predict an outcome from an argument, and impossible with an en banc. Eleven judges, half of whom did not ask a question, and several who did grilled both sides equally.

Streaming video should be here. It's set to start at 3:30 Pacific, 6:30 Eastern.

Story here. Chapter 11 isn't "we're going under" bankruptcy, but more "if you'll hold our creditors at bay, we can make changes and survive (maybe)" bankruptcy.

Given the booming gun economy (last I heard Ruger was running three shifts of workers, factories going 24 hours a day) and the government contract for M4s, I have no idea how they could get into this bind.

LA Times:

"One sheriff's deputy shot himself in the leg while pulling out his gun to confront a suspect.

Another accidentally fired a bullet in a restroom stall. A third deputy stumbled over a stroller in a closet as he was searching for a suspect, squeezing off a round that went through a wall and lodged in a piece of furniture in the next room.

Accidental gunshots by Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies have more than doubled in two years, endangering bystanders and occasionally injuring deputies."

The study, as usual, got play in the press... and then the bloggers took it apart.

Dave Workman reports on the results.

Asked if they would feel safer living in a neighborhood where guns were allowed, or whether they were forbidden, option with guns allowed beat the opposite by 68-22%.

Story here. Chicago thieves break into railroad car to loot, steal 111 guns and divide them up, each getting 12-13 of them. One admits to police he kept one gun and sold the other 12 to "Chuck" for $2,200, or about $180 each. "Chuck" turns out to be a convicted felon and fence. Police search his storage area, find stolen property but no guns, apparently he'd already sold them.

The theft occurred in April, and already six guns have been recovered on the streets. It's safe to say that no one involved had an FFL or Firearm Owners' ID card, and probably did not stop to perform a background check....

Order here. The Court denies cert., not a big surprise, but Thomas and Scalia dissent and say the Court should have accepted the case, even though there is no split in the circuits.

Carol Brown, 39. Fatally stabbed by ex-BF while waiting to receive a gun permit. She applied in mid-April, the law says the police are supposed to decide within 30 days, but in practice they never do.

Laws are for you, not for them.

Richard Zahn, retired master gunnie sergeant, sentenced to 364 days in jail. His offense: showing his guns to a man who threatened him.

It spends it on full-time staff who drive drunk senators home.

That's the court-created defense (nowhere to be found in statute or constitution) which consists of -- a governmental actor cannot be civilly sued unless his conduct was "clearly established" as unconstitutional at the time he acted.

From their "ask the police" page-- what self defense products can I legally buy?

The short answer is, none. A "rape alarm" is legal, but hardly a defense. Any maybe a dye spray to mark the offender, but no pepper in it, and even so don't aim for his eyes, that would make it an illegal weapon.

Prof. Joyce Malcolm has them, together with commentary on Vermont's changing politics, over at Jurist.

The judge believes in moving quickly. He just issue an order that denies DC's motion for an immediate stay (even before Alan Gura filed his opposition to it), sets expedited briefing for a stay on appeal (which is a different sort of stay), and orders oral argument for July 7.

No order on the contempt motion yet, but DC has filed an opposition (which for some reason I can't link in) claiming that it made a mistake when it turned down an applicant for a concealed carry license and that the license will be issued upon her completing the training requirement.

Hat tip to Alice Beard, and to Gene Hoffman of CalGuns Foundation.

Consource, that remarkable online collection of constitutional history, is having a tenth anniversary fundraising event. If you want to know what they are about, just click on the "library" link at the top of their page.

It's the case that struck down DC's "may issue" permitting system. Now, SAF has moved to hold DC in contempt for not following the ruling, and DC has moved for a stay pending appeal. I think the contempt motion had the desired effect of goading DC into action.