Arms and the Law

Visible here. Two antis boast of their military knowledge and experience, but think the forward assist on an M-16/M-4 is a button you push to switch to full auto fire. (Either that, or they think the right end of the selector switch rotor is that button).

Comes this.

Don't put all your fireworks in a big pile, and if you do, don't set off bottle rockets nearby.

She pretty much caves in, though with an unusual ending suggesting that they can still be strict and arbitrary on granting permits for open carry.

Story here.

"If Alba is somehow found guilty for fighting back against criminal tyranny, then New Yorkers should understand this new reality: When you're in danger, no one is coming to save you, and if you try to save yourself, you're likely to be condemned for it."

UPDATE: GoFundMe just deleted Alba's account>

Story here. The gun is visible on the ground in the photo where the assassin is being grabbed. It looks like two barrels made out of 1" or so pipe, about 18' long, and taped to some manner of wooden handle. A big puff of white powder seen in a video indicates it was fueled by black powder. What was the security detail doing when the killer walked up lugging that hand cannon?

A candidate for Arizona's 4th Congressional district has an impressive campaign ad.

Story here. The breach also included AW registries, dealer record of sales data (meaning all gun purchases), applications for carry permits, and other information.

I've seen a suggestion -- if anyone did get the permit data, given that one required identifier is race, compare the percent for applications to the percent for granted. If there is a discrepancy, score a point about racial discrimination. If nothing else, that will show them there is a downside to allowing a leak/data breach.

93 year old shoots, captures burglars. Don't bring a fishing pole to a gunfight.

New York proposes to ban even licensed carry in any business that does not post a sign allowing it, plus requiring 15 hours of live-fire training on a range, and banning carry on 'sensitive place' including parks and public transit. Word is that the legislature is meeting today to vote on this.

California proposes to require three character witnesses and to expand "sensitive areas" where guns cannot be possessed, to include "medical facilities, public transit, public parks, playgrounds, public demonstrations and any place where alcohol is sold." It's a safe bet that the three references requirement will be expanded to require personal interviews of the references, which will be given the lowest law enforcement priority so that they take months or years to complete.

Orders list here. I see Assn of NJ Rifle & Pistol v. Bruck (magazine size), Young v. Hawaii (permit to carry), Bianchi v. Frosh (AW ban), and Duncan v. Bonta (magazine size).

This is common when the Supreme Court decides a case in a way that changes the legal standards while other cases are on appeal. Grant the petition, vacate the Circuit court ruling, and remand to them to do it over according to the new standards. Then see if anyone wants to take a second petition from that. Of course, the Circuit may then remand to the trial court, and then the process starts all over.

Jones v. Hendrix. Petitioner was convicted of being a felon in possession 22 years ago, and took and lost a habeas petition to challenge that. Under legislation limiting habeas relief, he could only take a second petition for specified grounds, including a change in constitutional interpretation.

He brought a second habeas petition, after the Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that, in a felon in possession case, the government must prove that the defendant knew he possessed a gun, and also knew that he'd been convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year's imprisonment. So is there some way around the fact that the statute only allows a second petition based on a new *constitutional* interpretation, and says nothing about a new interpretation of statute?

Latest event: the Attorney General declined to argue the government's position (they can do that if they jump thru some hoops) and the Court appointed ("invited," but when the Supreme Court invites you, you do not decline) a private attorney to argue it.

Whitaker v. DC, that would indirectly pose the remaining issue, permit requirements of "good character" or its equivalent (here, whether he was "suitable" to be issued a permit). Indirectly, since petitioner had a DC carry permit, and it was revoked, then reinstated (posing a big question of mootness).

I suppose all the pending petitions on 2A issues will be GVRed, granted, vacated and remanded--in other words, since NYSRPA altered the playing field, let the circuits reconsider their opinions, apply the new standards, and if anyone has a complaint, file another petition for cert.

UPDATE: Yep, I'd expect the magazine-size petition, like all the others, to get GVRed. Orders will probably come out tomorrow.

In the Wall Street Journal.

The firm didn't mind representing and getting a fishy plea deal for Jeffrey Epstein, but found NY State Rifle and Pistol Association beneath their standards.

The permit regimes of the repressive states (6-8 of them) keyed on two ambiguous requirements for a permit (1) "good cause" or a variant of that, and (2) "good moral character," or a variant of that. NYSRPA knocked out (1). They will likely fall back on (2), arguing that "good moral character" means more than just passes a background check. Create as many new requirements as possible (furnish references, police interviews of references, reject for any possible reason, and certain delay, delay, delay).

It'd be wise to have good folks apply promptly for permits, and start setting up a challenge, ASAP, to the (2) requirement.

FPC is announcing that California's Attorney General has advised that carry permits should be issued without the "good cause" requirement.

UPDATE: New Jersey does the same.

He and Erin Murphy are founding their own firm. They had been with Kirkland & Ellis, a very big national firm, but K&E voted that it will "no longer represent clients with respect to matters involving the interpretation of the Second Amendment." Some big clients, we may guess, sniffed at their 2A clientele.

I guess the firm has to keep up its standards.

Opinion here.

6-3, Thomas the author, text history and tradition the test. Looks like I called that one on the nose!

UPDATE: the world just changed. From the majority:

"Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's "unqualified command."

Balancing tests, goodbye.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Eugene Volokh has thoughts regarding the effect of the NYSRPA opinion.

The Supreme Court always releases the most controversial opinions of each Term at its very end (usually the end of June, sometimes going a bit into July). The joke was that they want to release them then so they can get out of town before the mob forms. This year that's no joke.

The Court has 13 opinions left to give. It's been modifying its calendar (as usually happens) to add more argument release days. A few days ago, opinion releases were set for tomorrow, Thursday, and this coming Monday. As of this morning, the schedule is for opinion releases Thursday and Friday, and order releases (routine things that don't require the Court to formally appear) for Monday. Monday can also be switched to an opinion release day if necessary.

I'm betting on a 6-3, with Thomas or Barrett writing the opinion, meaning "text, tradition, and history" will be major. Since they read opinions in reverse order of seniority, odds are it will come at the very start or the end of the day.

More on Hunter's gun.

"It's hard to believe that anyone is so stupid ... so what's my fault here Hallie that you speak of. Owning a gun that's in a locked car hidden on another property," Hunter Biden scolded Hallie in another text at 6:47 p.m. Oct. 23 before asking: "Do you want me dead."

At that point, Hallie Biden attempted to defend her actions, telling Hunter that "I just want you safe. That was not safe" and adding that the car where she found the gun was "open unlocked and windows down and the kids search your car."
.......
"Then when the police the FBI the secret service [sic] came on the scene she said she took it from me because she was scared I would harm myself due to my drug and alcohol problem and our volatile relationship and that she was afraid for the kids," he said.