Arms and the Law

Story here. An audit of $800,000 in DoJ grants to run a guy "buy-back" program showed that nearly $480,000 was corruptly used. The director of the program gave himself a $85,000 pay raise (without asking the board of directors to approve), brining his total pay to over a quarter of a million a year. He also spent thousands on gas, hotel rentals, and clothing. It paid $44,000 in rental and utilities for a building it used one a month. And it could not account for $28,000 in gift cards that were not traded for a gun but could not be accounted for.

On the side, it obtained 2,871 guns ... at a cost of $279 per gun. Since it handed out $100 gift cards for each, that indicates that close to two-thirds of the money went to "overhead." For an operation where the police actually collected the guns, and the organization simply handed out the gift cards.

Transcript of this morning's oral argument here. It's the case where an LEO who bought a gun for his uncle, and transferred it to him through a second FFL, was charged with making a straw man sale and with lying on the 4473 where it asks if you are the actual recipient of the firearm.

Initially, I was concerned because the Justices (apart from Scalaia) were pretty hard on Abramski's attorney. Then came the government's argument, and they were pretty hard on its attorney as well. Abramski's attorney then gave an excellent rebuttal, focusing on the positions the Justices had suggested. Rebuttals are too often neglected in appellate argument -- he certainly did not neglect his chance to score points!

Rather strange legal issue. The back of the 4473 says if you are going to make a gift of the gun to someone you should answer yes, you are actual recipient. The government theory here is that it wasn't a true gift... the uncle had sent him money for it, so he should have answered no. And if he'd bought it from himself and later decided to sell it to the uncle, he'd be okay to answer yes. I find it hard to reconcile all those positions, if the issue is how you answer that specific question: are you the actua

On youtube-- This is just incredible. He proclaims a rifle to be a "ghost gun," and explains that "with a 30 caliber magazine" or "30 magazine clip" it can fire thirty shots in half a second.

... and a misfired one, at that. Reporter David Gregory was given a walk on possessing an illegal magazine, but businessman Mark Witaschek is being tried on possession of one shotgun shell (which had proven to be a dud) in his house.

Joshua Prince has thoughts.

Past appropriations bills had restrictions protecting FFLs, and forbidding use of funds to narrow the curio and relic list. These were missing from the current bill. But, Prince discovers, prior appropriations restrictions had contained language forbidding use of funds appropriated then "and in any fiscal year thereafter," which is a legally valid restriction, operating into the future, so it does not have to be repeated in later appropriations acts.

And Statewide, around a thousand applications are being filed daily.

I rarely watch TV, except for occasional football (it is better to be uninformed than misinformed), however David Theroux has has some interesting thoughts on the issue.

Violent crime levels of the 50 States. The levels can also be broken down by particular offenses.

It's unwise to shoot a gun on a "reality" television show, if you're a convicted felon.

Sean Penn (whoever he is) has his girlfriend (whoever she is) talk him into melting down his 65 guns. David Codrea asks a simple question: given that Penn has a domestic violence conviction, what is he doing with 65 guns, or even one, in the first place? Celebrities have different rules, I suppose, especially in California.

Here's a summary, from SCOTUSBlog.

James Schiliro, former mayor of Marcus Hook, PA, was convicted recently of five felony counts relating to use of a gun. He brought a young guy home, plied him with wine, and propositioned him. When the guy refused and wanted to leave, Schiliro pulled a gun, shot into a wall, and talked of taking the fellow hostage.

Yesterday, he was sentenced to 10 - 20 months imprisonment.

"This is really a case of a complex person with complex issues," said his defense attorney. I suppose that's one way of putting it.

It's Morris v. US Army Corps of Engineers, D. Idaho, Jan. 10, 2014.

The Corps promulgated a regulation generally forbidding possession of a firearm and other arms (with exceptions for hunting and use at authorized ranges) on land it controls, including 700 dams and associated recreation areas. The court strikes down the regulation on 2A grounds. The court reasons that the regulation affects the core Heller right of self-defense, and that possession in a tent is as protected as possession in a home, the regulation entirely forbids that, and therefore is subject to strict scrutiny.

It reasons that possession for self-defense outside the tent is also protected. It reasons that a complete ban on that is a serious infringement, but it is not necessary to pick a standard of review since this would fail even intermediate review. It grants a preliminary injunction since plaintiffs have proven a "strong likelihood" that they will win at trial.

Yet another report. I think it's one phase of the expansion and acceptability of gun ownership that, well, this is hard to phrase. I think gun ownership and use was quite acceptable in American society from the settlement of Jamestown up to the 1960s. Then, largely under the influence of the mass media, it became less favored. After half a century of that, it is returning to the norm. Of course, that half century comprises most of our lives (or all of the life to those younger than I) so it seems as if it were a sea change. The mass media is behind the curve, still thinking in the old terms and only slowly and reluctantly realizing the new.

Demo leadership pressures Bloomberg to back off.

"Message received: the most important public policy challenge of 2013 was not all that important after all, at least when directly balanced against Democratic control of the upper chamber of Congress. Furthermore, even the most principled among us can be moved to abandon their cause so long as the pressure is intense enough.

Where does that leave the grassroots Democrats who were so convinced by their party's representatives that blood will flow in the streets unless the Congress takes action on gun control? Well, maybe they will get a conciliatory call from Bill Clinton, too."

Via Instapundit.

A very good deal, I'd say.

Story here.

Chicago bans all gun sales within city limits (including sales by licensed gun dealers), and the court strikes that down. I've read the opinion (don't have an online link yet) and it seems an honest application of "intermediate review." The burden is upon the City to prove real, not speculative, reasons to believe the ordinance will hold down crime. The City cannot come up any evidence. Criminals don't buy from licensed dealers, they get guns from theft. That crime guns trace disproportionately to some licensed dealers may just mean those dealers do more business, hence their guns are more exposed to theft from the purchasers. In any event, the City argues that its buyers can just go to dealers outside city limits -- but that contradicts its claim that not allowing dealers inside city limits somehow limits crime.

Right here. The conclusion is that tighter CCW laws, and the Federal "assault weapon ban" were associated with high homicide rates.

Giving a presentation, the New York State commissioner of Homeland Security uses his handgun's laser sight as laser pointer, not worrying that in bringing it bear the laser tracked across the foreheads of audience members. You can't make this stuff up.

Hat tip to reader Jim K. ....

He takes the ruling on, in the National Review Online. It's a very good article. Even under "intermediate review," which is what the court applied (as have almost all other courts), the government bears the burden of proving that the law is a "good fit, if not a perfect one" to serving an important government objective. It requires evidence, not speculation.

The judge cites a criminologist who said that "assault-weapon" crime declined after the Federal ban, but Lott notes that this is contradicted by the criminologist's published studies. (To be fair to the Court, it's possible that no one pointed this out). And he concluded that registration serves some governmental objective, even though there is no evidence showing this.