The long anticipated Supreme Court decision on New York’s insanely restrictive “good cause” requirements for a concealed carry license has tossed the state requirements, in favor of NYSRPA. For those interested only in this single case, here is the meat of the decision:
New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I had feared that, even if they ruled in favor of NYSRPA, it would be a very narrow ruling; touching only on “show good cause” may-issue licensing. But the respondents — Bruen et al screwed up by stupidly presenting what they thought would historical precedents supporting their licensing system. This gave the Court a chance to make strong statements on a number of 2A-related things.
So “proceedings consistent with this opinion” are going to be very, very interesting. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion; when I saw that, I knew it was going to good. He goes into history in surprising detail. This opinion could be used as an American history textbook for a complete school year. Homeschoolers take note.
The firearms-related portion of this bill is Title II – FIREARMs (there’s actually plenty more stuff covered, quite unrelated, to anyone but a politician/bureaucrat).
I’m not sure why The Gun Feed just picked up this 2017 story. But so long as they have, let’s look at some judicial stupidity. It never hurts to be ready to argue the next — inevitable — infringement case.
Assault Weapons Not Protected by Second Amendment, Federal Appeals Court Rules
“Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war,” Judge Robert King wrote for the court, adding that the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller explicitly excluded such coverage.
First, the assertion that HELLER “explicitly excluded” Second Amendment protection of “assault weapons” is such a gross misstatement of the decision that I can only consider King’s claim to be a blatant, intentional lie.
If it is indeed the case, as the District believes, that the number of guns contributes to the number of gun-related crimes, accidents, and deaths, then, although there may be less restrictive, less effective substitutes for an outright ban, there is no less restrictive equivalent of an outright ban.
HELLER found that less restrictive measures than an outright ban must be considered. Note especially that HELLER overturned the District’s outright ban on handguns. For the terminally clueless, they’re were specifying strict scrutiny.
At least dissenting Judge William Traxler got it.
“For a law-abiding citizen who, for whatever reason, chooses to protect his home with a semi-automatic rifle instead of a semi-automatic handgun, Maryland’s law clearly imposes a significant burden on the exercise of the right to arm oneself at home, and it should at least be subject to strict scrutiny review before it is allowed to stand.”
Yes; strict scrutiny, to weigh whether any lesser restriction than an outright ban would suffice to meet the government’s alleged interest.
But let us turn our attention to the other factor that King and the Fourth missed.
MILLER, 1939
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
Required. And “common use” — note that the short-barreled shotgun test in question in MILLER specified common military use, not sporting use — would seem to apply to 20 MILLION AR-pattern weapons of the sort this very Court called “weapons of war.”
Common, militia-suitable arms.
It appears to me that ten injustices on the Fourth Circuit needed to be impeached; for sheer incompetence, if not outright malfeasance.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
“Who will say on this network or any other network in the next few days, ‘It’s time to repeal the Second Amendment?’”
Bad idea, Lardo Calrissian.
You can’t repeal the Second Amendment, any more than you can repeal any of the other nine. It was a package deal, you see, an absolute prerequisite to ratifying the main body of the Constitution. Repeal one, you repeal them all. Do that, and you repeal the whole Constitution — and with it, any legal authority that the government has to exist (let alone repeal the Second Amendment).
— Alexander Hope
That comes from chapter five of Hope, by Aaron Zelman and L. Neil Smith. The style makes me think that particular passage was penned by Neil (and it seems like he had a stand-alone essay to the same effect), but I don’t believe Aaron would have let that go into their co-authored novel unless he agreed with it.
As a casual student of history, who has read much about the ratification of the Constitution, I also agree.
Lose one, lose them all. Lose it all.
I suspect that Moore, and most Dims currently in DC — and far too many Repugnicans, as well — would be happy to lose the few remaining Constitutional limits on their power. They don’t particularly care about “legal authority;” just power.
The problem is… if our wanna-be tyrants are no longer restrained by that pesky Constitution, neither are the people.
The people pissed off at senseless bans, and illegal ballot drop boxes, might just decide that turning to constitutionally-enabled courts — who already defecate on individual rights at the slightest provocation — really isn’t necessary.
Voting out scumbags, and voting in new replacement scumbags who promise to use KY while screwing us? Why bother with that discarded constitutional process? Wouldn’t high-velocity lead be cheaper and faster? Not to mention proactively educating would-be replacements.
Court-blessed “constitutional” takings of property? Get rid of the Constitution and former property owners might resort to ex-constitutional re-takings, enforced with ropes and lamp posts.
Lose one, lose them all. Moore himself might want to consider the ramifications of chucking his First Amendment protections to defame folks for a buck. The people might decide, lacking that lost constitutional recourse, to go bowling for lying documentarians.
Get rid of the Constitution, and the people’s pretend recourse… and they might stop pretending they do.
Maybe the tyrants will be counting on the out-numbered police to prop up their post-Constitution regime. How many officers would continue to be willing to do that once they’ve lost “constitutional” sovereign immunity, and the people know it?
Perhaps the Constitution has only been an illusory paper restraint on government. But it has been a potent symbolic restraint on the people, preventing them from eliminating abusive politicians and government agents out of hand. I do not truly comprehend the willingness — nay, the eagerness of the Left to go there, to surrender that protection, given the likely consequences.
We’d be starting from scratch, with new rules written by the survivors.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Buffalo shooting: Extreme risk protection orders could help stop Ohio mass killings| Rogers
There is a statutory remedy that can authorize preventive actions against warned mass shootings: extreme risk protection order laws. They allow law enforcement and sometimes family members to petition a court for an emergency order to deprive the dangerous individual of access to guns.
“Red flag” laws. Everyone’s — especially this alleged Yale graduate, past attorney, and adjunct law professor — favorite due process deprivation to stop something that might happen, maybe, sometime.
But at least Douglas Rogers tries to back up his claim with case law.
Sort of. Specifically…
There is no legal prohibition against extreme risk protection orders.
The Supreme Court “has recognized, on many occasions, that where a state must act quickly, or where it would be impractical to provide pre-deprivation process, post-deprivation process satisfies the requirements of the Due Process Clause.
That sounds definite, eh? Take a closer look. Rogers didn’t actually cite the case from which he’s quoting, but it didn’t take much of a search to find that language in Gilbert v. Homar, 520 U.S. 924 (1997). SCOTUS found:
In the circumstances here, the State did not violate due process by failing to provide notice and a hearing before suspending a tenured public employee without pay. Pp. 928-936.
Wait. Suspension without pay is on an equal level with confiscation of property (firearms)?
Look at some facts of the case:
“respondent was arrested by state police and charged with a drug felony.”
Sufficient evidence to support probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed.
“Petitioners, ESU officials, suspended him without pay, effective immediately, pending their own investigation.”
Suspended without pay. Not fired, not fined. Based on a probable cause arrest.
Compare that to the typical “red flag” “extreme risk” order”
A complaint that someone might pose a threat in the future. Not an allegation that a crime had been committed.
Property, in the form of firearms, is taken.
As the Court noted, suspension without pay based on a probable cause arrest was a temporary inconvenience; no money was taken, just new payments suspended (for a period when the respondent wouldn’t be working to earn that pay).
A red flag confiscation order, based on a a wild guess rather than a committed crime, results in the taking of property. More specifically, it’s the taking of constitutionally-protected — Second Amendment — property, without due process.
I’m seeing some significant differences between the scenarios, Rogers. Perhaps a better SCOTUS citation on the actual taking of property would be Truax v. Corrigan (1921);
“The due process clause requires that every man shall have the protection of his day in court, and the benefit of the general law, a law which hears before it condemns” […] “a law which operates to make lawful such a wrong as is described in plaintiff’s complaint deprives the owner of the business and the premises of his property without due process and cannot be held valid”. (emphasis added)
Hearing first, then taking.
I fear for the clients of attorneys taught by this former adjunct law professor.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
But one element of the cluster-f— was of special interest.
“They called me at 1 p.m., on Tuesday, and apologized for not telling me, saying they were not comfortable having too many people know about the raid before it happened. They were hitting several gun shops as part of an annual thing.” [emphasis added]
Judge: You want a warrant to raid an FFL? Let’s see your probable cause.
ATF: It’s May again.
Judge: Ah. Right. -signs paperwork- Have fun.
I want to see the warrant, probable cause affidavit, and the judge’s name.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
The big news in American human/civil rights today is JONES vs. BONTA, overturning the California ban on long guns for 10-20 year-olds.
To hear from a lot of “news” outlets this morning, the Ninth Circuit ruled against the ban. Most headlines read that way, and many even continue that into the reports themselves. A few correctly point out that the ruling came from a three judge panel of the Ninth, rather than the whole circuit. That’s pretty important, for reasons beyond the obvious option for appeal.
The good news is that the panel correctly applied strict scrutiny.
It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest.
The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest.
The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest: there must not be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest.
The law in question broke down into two parts. One forbade any long guns to those 18-20yo unless they have a hunting license. Because the court found that it was not unnecessarily broad — allowing the hunting license exception — it used intermediate scrutiny on that part, and allowed it to stand.
The second part in question banned 18-20yos possessing semiautomatic centerfire rifles, hunting license or not. While the first part would allow those with hunting licenses to possess pump shotguns, single shot rifles, or bolt-actions, semiautomatics were right out; essentially with no exceptions (other than for police or military). Coupled with the existing prohibition on sales of any handgun to those under 21, this amounted to a near total revocation of Second Amendment rights for young adults. The panel found that to be overly broad under strict scrutiny.
Third, the district court erred by applying intermediate scrutiny, rather than strict scrutiny, to the semiautomatic centerfire rifle ban. Strict scrutiny applied because the law on its face banned almost all young adults from having semiautomatic rifles. The main difference between this ban and the long gun regulation was the exceptions. The long gun regulation has a readily available exception, at least on its face—young adults can get hunting licenses. The semiautomatic rifle ban has no such exception: the only young adults who can buy semiautomatic rifles are some law enforcement officers and active-duty military servicemembers. The panel held that California’s ban was a severe burden on the core Second Amendment right of selfdefense in the home. Even applying intermediate scrutiny, the ban, prohibiting commerce in semiautomatic rifles for all young adults except those in the police or military, regulated more conduct than was necessary to achieve its goal and therefore failed the reasonable fit test.
As a matter of routine, when California loses a case at the panel level, it appeals to the Ninth en banc; the whole circuit. That is where things could get very interesting, thanks to Judge Stein’s dissent in this case.
Dissenting in part, Judge Stein stated that while the majority was correct to apply intermediate scrutiny to the long gun regulation to affirm the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction, it erred in applying strict scrutiny to and reversing the district court with respect to the semiautomatic centerfire rifle regulation. On that basis, Judge Stein concurred with the majority’s holding and reasoning with respect to the long gun regulation and dissented from its holding and reasoning with respect to the semiautomatic rifle regulation. Judge Stein stated that by neglecting consideration of either the disproportionate perpetration of violent crime by, or the relatively immature and variable cognitive development among, adults under age 21, the majority opinion failed to conduct a legal analysis that comported with the corpus of precedent within this Circuit and elsewhere.
Oh. My. How will the en banc Ninth deal with Stein’s assertion that 18-20yos are too criminal and/or too mentally defective to enjoy enumerated rights, while struggling to reject the panel’s decision that they do have some rights?
If, as I expect, the Ninth takes up this case en banc the weasel-worded side-stepping around Stein’s dissent will be amazing. If they roll with Stein’s position, they open up several cans of worms.
Too immature to have a rifle? Too immature to vote.
Too immature to have a rifle? Too immature for free speech. (OK, they’ll probably like that one.)
Too immature to have a rifle? Too immature for an abortion.
Too immature to have a rifle? Too immature for a car.
Work your way throught the Bill of Rights and consider what else young adults might be to immature to enjoy.
If the Ninth decides intermediate scrutiny should be applied, and accepts Stein’s assertion that young adults are du jure criminals and mentally deficient, California’s red flag law could also come into play.
As bad as no-due process confiscations based on — even anonymous — accusations of potential future crime are, imagine red flag hearings based on Stein’s bizarre idea.
NOW: “Judge, Mr. Smith has been angry and acting erratically. Hid did this and this and this. He has guns. Please take them.”
STEIN’s FUTURE: “Judge, Mr. Smith is 18 and has a bolt-action hunting rifle. Please take it. No, he has not been angry or erratic, but under JONES v. BONTA, he’s a criminal and mentally deficient by default, by reason of age.”
That’ll go over well with younger voters. If they can still vote.
Previous age limits for firearms have survived intermediate scrutiny in the past because they’ve been somewhat narrowly tailored. Young adults were prohibited from purchasing handguns because those tend to be used more often in crimes than long guns. (That’s still a bit wide for my taste, and courts are beginning to agree with me.)
Outright bans for individuals — as opposed to entire demographic classes — were narrowly tailored because they required convictions of those specific individuals for serious crimes, or judicial findings of mental incompetence specific to those individuals.
Will the Ninth — like Stein — be willing to chuck that in favor of wholesale bans for entire demographic classes?
…disproportionate perpetration of violent crime by…
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
I recently wrote elsewhere about the odd way Dims like to interpret rights, specifically abortion. Regardless of whether you’re pro-abortion of pro-life, you should find ROE v. WADE to be really bad pseudo-constitutional law.
Somehow, the 1973 Supreme Court waded through the Fourteenth Amendment — written to ensure equal rights for freed Blacks post-Civil War — and found a right to abortion. Rationally, you might have expected them to look to the Ninth Amendment.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Right there; an acknowledgement of rights not otherwise mentioned.
The SCOTUS leak strongly suggests that SCOTUS may be about ready to toss ROE v. WADE, and the Left is panicking. They’re screaming that ROE v. WADE is “settled law” and may not reviewed by SCOTUS again.
Either way, gun owners should rejoice… and consider this in terms of the Second Amendment.
It’s common for the Left to now grudgingly admit the existence of the right to keep and bears arms, But that’s just muskets, not “assault weapons,” “high capacity” magazines, or [insert Lefty bugaboo of the moment].
Scenario 1: ROE v. WADE stands.
My right to “high capacity” (i.e.- normal) magazines is protected by the 14A, just like it protects abortion.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Equal protection. If any person can have standard capacity mags, so can I. Or are they going to says police and military aren’t people?
This has the added benefit of imploding lefty heads when you invoke the infamous Dred Scott decision; all free men have a right to be armed. But being terrified of armed, freed Blacks (who might hold a bit of a grudge over past slavery), they ruled against Scott’s free status.
If SCOTUS can’t revisit ROE v. WADE and toss it, Then Dred Scott — with all the nasty implications for Blacks today — should still be “settled law.”
Somehow, I doubt that will endear Dims to Black voters this Fall.
Scenario 2: ROE v. WADE overturned.
This could go two ways (or a bit of both). Pro-abortion advocates could simply turn to the states, or they could suddenly take cognizance of the Ninth Amendment and start arguing for that abortion protection. They’ll still be whining about “settled law.”
So. Do. We. My right to that pile of 30-rounders is protected by the Ninth Amendment; it’s an unenumerated right.
And hey; we can still make heads implode with the all-free-citizens-may be armed 14A/Dred Scott argument. We will be the sane people saying Blacks are free and due all the same rights, while the Left will be in the position of pissing off their voters by claiming the opposite.
The Second Amendment rights movement has suffered what I consider to be some grievous losses the last few years. We lost Brad Alpert in 2019 who’s Second Amendment activity went way back to 1966. We lost his beloved wife Jo Ann just a few weeks ago. She was a Southern Second Amendment powerhouse in her own right. They were some of the smartest people I ever met, and many a time a visit to see them would sooth my troubled heart, soul or both. Not to mention they were a great source of inspiration.
I’m not on FakeBook much at all anymore, but a quick check in showed me we lost a another stalwart on the 15th of April.
And then last night I got a phone call from an old friend, going way back to 2004. January 22nd of 2004 to be precise. I was a young(er) country gal who had traveled to the state capitol to attend a hearing for a court case against Missouri’s concealed carry law. I was going to write my first column for a grassroots Missouri Second Amendment rights group. I didn’t know anyone. I was going because I didn’t have to work that day, and I wanted to see it, and write about it. And it became what I consider to be a life shaping event. I met some amazing people that day, people I had only heard of in Second Amendment rights group meetings. People that had been instrumental in getting concealed carry passed in the state of Missouri. One of those people was John Ross, the author of Unintended Consequences. It is a big book, it combines history with his modern day story line and while I haven’t read it for a few years, in some ways I think it’s prophetic. As I recall it’s towards the beginning there is a part that takes place in the Warsaw ghetto. I was hooked. Part of it does have some pretty graphic scenes, just a warning up front. But it’s a once you read it, you’ll never forget it. I remember when it came out he, and his ex-wife were harassed by alphabet soup agencies, but the book still went on sale.
My phone call last night was from my friend Michael Meyer (who despite never getting me a Clydesdale, I still adore) telling me John had passed on. I didn’t even know he had been working on his next book. Who knows what that might have been like. Michael said everyone was in shock. I get it, I am as well. I told Michael it’s because we never expect our legends to die. I guess some people have been looking on the net for that original column I did, about meeting them all. So I’m sharing some pictures with you from that day, the lunch at Madison’s and Michael generously shared some really good pictures of John with me.
I was in the presence of Warrior Angels that day, I still aspire to become one, and to inspire others to become one as well. Because I stand on the shoulders of giants.
In the Presence of Warrior Angels
I was lucky enough to be able to attend the Missouri Supreme Court (MOSC) hearing on the 22nd of January. It was an amazing experience for us. We found out by attending the WMSA meeting the night before that we needed to be there around 10 AM, rather than the 2 PM we had planned on. There would be tickets given out to enter the hearing. So I got up bright and early so I could leave on time. If you have never had to wake up chickens to feed them, it is pretty funny.
After an uneventful journey, I arrived around 9:40 AM found a parking spot in a 2 hour parking meter lot and got all set. I knew what the building looked like from internet hunting. I had ever been to the MOSC. I went in and passed through the metal detectors. Seemed an unnecessary step to me, as there was a big sign on the door to the effect of no weapons beyond this point. All criminals will certainly obey that sign, so why both with the metal detector? Then the intrepid Marshal went through my purse, more or less. Now that is bravery! We all left our cell phones on a table along with everyone else’s. I was told we couldn’t take our camera upstairs, so I asked the Marshal if I could take a photo by the beautiful marble stairway. He said sure. I started to take the photo, and a very nice gentleman, who turned out to be John Gordon, came up and offered to take a photo. Then tongue in cheek (at least I think it was) he asked which side we were on. I told him, VERY pro. He smiled and said as long as I was on the right side and laughed. John took the photo. Afterwards we met Tom Mendenhall, both were from Columbia. There were another group of men standing around, mostly in suits, I wondered which side they were on. While we were waiting for the tickets to be given out I amused myself by trying to figure out which side folks were on according to how they dressed and acted. After a while a line formed, we asked Carl, the guard behind the desk, by this time we were on a first name basis with Carl, if we should get in line. He softly laughed and said he didn’t know why folks were forming the line, that the tickets would be given out in order of arrival, and the Marshal knew the order of the arrival. Shortly after 10 AM, out he came and proceeded to pass out tickets. As we walked outside Dennis told me he had traded tickets with the gentleman that was walking out with us, so he could sit with his friends. I asked if we were still sitting together, he said we were. The gentleman then introduced himself. Tim Oliver. I lunged across Dennis and yelped TIM OLIVER?? THE Tim Oliver? He laughed and said yes. He told us he had a table reserved at Madison’s for lunch, we should come. Now we are in a strange city, we don’t know anyone, and this nice man invites us to join his group. We asked if he was sure there would be enough room for us. He said sure. He told us where it was, so we set out to move our car and find the place. We found it. It turned out, it was across from the parking garage. We went in and began our meeting of Warrior Angels. It was the most amazing thing, we ended up having lunch with Tim Oliver, Greg Jeffery, Tom Mendenhall and John Gordon on one side of the table. On the other was Dennis, Mike Meyer, John Ross (Author of Unintended Consequences, which if you haven’t read it, wow, you should!) and C. Michael Gamble. These are men who have labored long and hard in the fight for our Second Amendment Rights. They are intelligent, informed and generous of nature. They allowed two folks from the country who were pretty much alone in the city to be a part of their group and within 5 minutes we felt at home, we were among our own kind. Then it was back to the MOSC. We were front row center, I sat next to John Gordon, who secured press packets for us. When the lawyers filed in, Tim, who sat on the other side of Dennis, told us who the players were. Bert Newman opened for the bad guys (no bias in reporting here folks!). His argument hinged on the statement in the Missouri constitution that Article 1 section 23 which stated “but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons” meant that it couldn’t be done. One of the justices pointed out then it would apply to law officers, process servers and the like. Mr. Newman felt this applied only to citizens, not to law enforcement or the like which he said are “the state”. That law officers, process servers and the like have much more extensive training, regulation & requirements. There was a long discussion about rights under the first clause of Article 1 section 23, rights to promote personal security-guaranteed by the first clause, the right to defend their person or property. Mr. Newman feels that our law enforcement officials are promoting personal security by protecting the citizens of the state in a manner that is consistent with the first clause of Article 1 section 23. So as I understand that, Mr. Newman feels that our right to defend ourselves is taken care of by law enforcement officers. While I listen to this, I am remembering the part in Missouri Weapons and Self-Defense Law by K. Jamison, that the police do NOT have a duty to protect the individual, just society as a whole, and am thinking, oh, this isn’t good. Then came one of the most entertaining portions of the show. I believe it was Judge Benton, that ask Mr. Newman, so your definition of the word justify is sanction? What definition do you give us of the word justify? Faster than a speeding bullet, Mr. Newman whipped a pair of black patent tap shoes out of his briefcase and tied them on. He began to dance at a rapid speed. He started with the last phrase means accept, then went into the intent of the founders is so clear, looking back to the mischief to be remedied, spirit of the times, 1875 havoc, civil war…. The Justice re-asked the question of what justify meant, and where did he get the definition. With his feet furiously flying, Mr. Newman launched into another diatribe, included in his points, meaning of “does not justify” is a ban on concealed weapons, means can’t have. In the back of my head I am hearing this raspy voice saying “it depends on what your definition of the word is, is”…Finally after another Justice asked a time or two, Mr. Newman finally stated that the word justify meant “allow”. Mr. Newman then took off his tap shoes and Mr. Miller, the other bad guy (for simplicity in reporting) got up to present the Hancock portion of the argument. Judge Benton pointed out that the Sheriff may charge up to $100, or may not charge anything. That there may be a Sheriff that has said he will do it for free, as part of his running platform. Mr. Miller kept insisting that for judicial economy, that instead of having 114 counties come before the Supreme Court asking for relief from this unfunded mandate, it should just be ruled on now. One Justice pointed out that some counties have said they will not need any additional personnel, they already have the process in place for fingerprints, and basically, it won’t be any big deal. Obviously, this was not the Jackson County Sheriff. Mr. Miller’s point is that although the Sheriffs may charge up to $100, that the way the law is written prohibits the Sheriffs from using the money to pay for cost of processing the applications. Huh, where do these people get this stuff?
Then the mighty Paul Wilson from the Attorney General’s office (One of the good guys) came up to bat. Justice Wolf wanted to know if the money goes to the Sheriff’s fund for training, would the County be compensated for other expenses. Mr. Wilson replied that there was no way to know what other expenses there might be. He said that there is no way the legislature would draft the law, allow the Sheriffs to charge up to $100 and then say they could not use it to pay the expenses. One of the Justices asked “what if we struck the restriction to training and equipment? Then they could use the money as they see fit.” Mr. Wilson replied they could, or they could acknowledge the next section in the law which requires a sheriff to reimburse a local police chief any reasonable expenses meant that these categories were not to be exclusive to other expenses. He stated that the legislature had acted rationally in providing funds. When asked how could he say that in a county like St. Louis that it will not result in increase work load, Mr. Wilson replied they can’t, they have no way of knowing if 1 person, or 100,001 people will apply. He pointed out that the legislature will likely give a law against cross burning this year, and that will result in increased work for detectives. He asked if it was to be suggested that the law would violate the Hancock Amendment. He stated that is work they do, they capture criminals and bring them to the prosecutors. That these duties are part and parcel of what they do. Mr. Wilson stated that if a county doesn’t want to oblige someone who wants a concealed carry license, the county would raise the Hancock issue, they would have to prove, which they have not, that it is an unfunded mandate. That county would then need to come before the MOSC to be excused from complying. BUT if the court did choose to do that, it would not be preventing any other county from complying with the law.
Then it was back to Dancin’ Bert Newman for his final argument which is banning concealed carry promotes personal safety.
Mr. Miller’s final say was if they didn’t decide now on the Hancock issue (before there is any data to base a decision on mind you) that they would have to decide the issue 114 times. Just then a little Red chicken ran across the court room, something about the sky falling….I think. And with that the arguments closed.
What can I say, Mr. Brooks didn’t look too happy. It was the most amazing day, meeting these wonderful men, they truly are Warrior Angels, and to be present when history is being made!
Lunch at Madison’s
A gathering of Warrior Angels at the Missouri Supreme CourtThe late, very great John Ross
Who’s the dumbest one of all? I never expect much sense from victim-disarmers, but the CT Mirror’s Mark Robinson may have set a new low bar.
The 2nd Amendment doesn’t say that
Let’s not buy into misconceptions about the 2nd Amendment when advancing Gov. Lamont’s gun control proposals.
What might those misconceptions be?
Public perception and debate only changed a little more than a generation ago. Until recently, this has been the overwhelming consensus among Americans and in the courts. Ever since the aftermath of the War of 1812 (when veterans returned home from war with their firearms) the federal government has regulated and restricted the right to bear arms, and did so without political controversy.
According to “A Well Regulated Right: The Early American Origins of Gun Control,” by Saul Cornell and Nathan DeDino, during the decades after the Revolutionary War, the sale of firearms was forbidden to Catholics, slaves, indentured servants, and Native Americans.
He went there: Gun control is good because there is no individual right to arms, and we used to disarm Catholics, slave, and Indians.
Holy s[…].
Say… since slavery was legal then, does he want to re-institute that as well?
Moving on.
In U.S. v Miller in 1936, the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving the National Firearms Act, (which was passed after the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre). In that case, the Court ruled unanimously that the 2nd Amendment pertains to militias and not to individual rights.
Aside from the chronological error (MILLER was 1939, which gives you an idea of how well Robinson studied this issue), MILLER was about the status of the defendant’s sawed-off shotgun, not individual RKBA. Specifically, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear militarily useful arms, and that no evidence was presented showing that the military used short-barreled shotguns; thus, registration of a non-militarily useful arm could be required. No such evidence was presented because the defendant had died, and with no one to pay their bills, his attorneys didn’t show up to argue the case. (And keep that “militarily useful part in mind.)
But in 2008, in District of Columbia v Heller, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, ruling that the 2nd Amendment did create an individual right to bear arms. That is – literally – the first time the high court took this position.
No. The Court found that the Second Amendment protects a preexisting right.
Nor was this the first time that SCOTUS had found the Second to be an individual right. The Supreme Court has ruled that way since at least 1857 (hint: SCOTUS ruled against Dred Scott because if he was a free man, he would have a right to bear arms just like anyone else). If Robinson had bother reading the HELLER decision, he might have noticed that Scalia cited numerous prior precedents for an individual right.
Robinson has a little list of further infringements that he wants CT Governor Lamont to impose.
Close the loopholes in assault weapons laws
Remember that “militarily useful” part of MILLER? If “assault weapons” are nasty, military-style arms, then MILLER (and HELLER) already found that we have an individual right to them. Shall we go there; in court, I mean?
Make domestic violence convictions an automatic disqualifier for obtaining a gun permit
Well, that seems a little redundant, since a domestic violence conviction already makes possession of a firearm a crime. Doubly redundant since CGS § 29-28(b) also mentions that no permit may be issued to anyone prohibited under 18 USC 922.
