Re: https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/02/16/senate-blocks-obama-rule-denying-gun-rights-to-mental-defective-social-security-recipients/
What bugs me is that they use the term "mental defective". I can't balance a checkbook worth a tinker's dam and nobody would dare call me mentally defective in any kind of a serious vein. (My friends don't count.) Besides infringing on gun rights it seems to me this ban infringed on a lot more than the recipients' gun rights! ***GRJ*** ___ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
SCOTUS declines firearms cases
On 12/9/2015 2:00 PM, Henry Schaffer wrote: A discussion of the firearms-related cases which weren't granted cert. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/supreme-court-gun-rights/419160/ The Atlantic's article presented one very interesting comment as far as I was concerned, namely, "perhaps they are just waiting for the right case". It's a fascinating statement. I am sort of worn out from telling people that the Supremes *TOLD US* that "reasonable" restrictions were permissible. There is nothing shocking about this denial of certiorari under such circumstances. If they want to expand the RKBA, or limit it, they need a case that does not include miscellaneous issues like magazine capacity or "ugly" assault type weapons. For purists those issues are central; for someone who is not a purist something more is required. Telling an American citizen he cannot have X but can still have Y in re firearms easily falls into the realm of "reasonableness". I can totally understand why the Supremes don't want to deal with such matters - the type of weapon, the description of a weapon, or how many rounds it holds don't get to the essence of the issue sufficiently to warrant a new ruling, whether an expansion or a diminution. My first reaction to the _Friedman_ decision was annoyance at the National Rifle Association for even being involved or permitting the case to go up on appeal to the SCOTUS. I'm a long time Patron member and I am fixing to tell them that they need to get their thinking straight - find a GUN RIGHTS case, not an ugly gun/ammunition capacity case. Throwing mud on the wall to see what sticks is NOT my idea of a good legal strategy if the _Heller_ and _McDonald _decisions are to be expanded. I am reminded of the decision in _Moose Lodge No. 107 v Irvis_. It's such an interesting ruling, the bottom line of which being that "we" can't tell private citizens what to do even though racial discrimination is bad thing - if the state didn't do it then it's not covered by the 14th Amendment". My twisted legal mind says the other side of the coin works, too, to wit, "if we already told you that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states (and local government) through the 14th Amendment, but that reasonable restrictions are permissible" then "we" cannot tell local governments that it is unreasonable to restrict magazine capacity or certain types of firearms as long as the local government doesn't restrict access to all firearms". Maybe I'm just not sufficiently a purist - but I did spend years trying to explain to people that their state governments _could _restrict firearms because the RKBA didn't apply to the states - thank goodness I don't have to do THAT any longer! ***GRJ*** ___ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
SCOTUS decision in re same sex marriage and firearms
some far, deeper concepts that can be used to support a host of Second Amendment arguments, especially national reciprocity. I'm just curious if anyone else looks at this case that way or am I Mr. Pollyanna in this respect? ***Greg Jacobs*** ___ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: New Stanford gun control study
Today's Topics: 1. New Stanford gun control study (Daniel D. Todd) -- Has anyone reviewed the methodology and findings of the new Stanford study? http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/november/donohue-guns-study-111414.html It flies in the face of all of the other research posted on the Internet. That's not to say the concealed carry permittees never get into gun crime trouble but the Stanford study simply has to be using misstated data, skewed findings, etc. Considering the source I'm skeptical from the outset. http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/concealed-carry/ ***GRJ*** ___ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Legal straw man
Since Tom is a legal purchaser in his state, this is an example of a perfectly legal straw man purchase. So there is anti-gun Big Lie number #3, that all straw man purchases are illegal. Methinks there is an opportunity here for an OAQ (occasionally asked questions, or oak): anti-gun Big Lies and the truth. The key to that is the definition of purchase versus taking delivery. If you walk into a gun shop with your spouse, parent, sibling, friend, or child (of legal age, of course) and give the shop money for the purchase of a firearm but the other person with you takes delivery and fills out the Form 4473, and is the subject of the NICS check, nothing illegal happened. It's a straw purchase only with respect to the person who delivered the cash. That's a far cry from you delivering the cash AND completing the forms (upon which you would have to lie in this instance), getting the NICS check, and then handing the weapon over to someone else in violation of the law and the Form 4473. BIG difference. ***GRJ*** ___ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Legal straw man
Thanks, Professor. That was kind of what I meant. "Strawman" in the ATF context has taken on a different meaning than the one we read about in Contracts 101.***GRJ***-Original Message-
From: "Olson, Joseph E." <jol...@hamline.edu>
Sent: May 8, 2013 2:14 PM
To: Greg Jacobs <grjtw...@earthlink.net>
Cc: "Firearms Reg, List" <firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Legal straw man
*What you describe is NOT a "strawman" purchase at all as top anyone.*The strawman refers to using another person to *deceive* the dealer and THEGOVERNMENT by making the fake appear as the transferee to the dealer and tothe government so that the NICS check is run on the fakeer and thepaperwork shows a transfer to the faker.The government is concerned that the person who fills out the ATF Form 4473and undergoes the NICS check is the "actual buyer/transferee" of thefirearm. That is, the person takes and holds possession if the gun. Thegovernment is *not* concerned with the financing, absent fraud, of thetransaction.On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 1:19 PM, Greg Jacobs <grjtw...@earthlink.net> wrote: Since Tom is a legal purchaser in his state, this is an example of a perfectly legal "straw man" purchase. So there is anti-gun Big Lie number #3, that all straw man purchases are illegal. Methinks there is an opportunity here for an OAQ ("occasionally asked questions", or "oak"): anti-gun Big Lies and the truth. The key to that is the definition of "purchase" versus "taking delivery". If you walk into a gun shop with your spouse, parent, sibling, friend, or child (of legal age, of course) and give the shop money for the "purchase" of a firearm but the other person with you "takes delivery" and fills out the Form 4473, and is the subject of the NICS check, nothing illegal happened. It's a straw purchase only with respect to the person who delivered the cash. That's a far cry from you delivering the cash AND completing the forms (upon which you would have to lie in this instance), getting the NICS check, and then handing the weapon over to someone else in violation of the law and the Form 4473. BIG difference. ***GRJ*** ___ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.-- **Professor Joseph Olson, J.D.(*Hon*. Duke), LL.M.(*Tax*. Florida) o651-523-2142Hamline University School of Law (MS-D2037)f 651-523-2236St. Paul, MN 55113-1235 c612-865-7956jol...@hamliine.eduhttp://law.hamline.edu/constitutional_law/joseph_olson.html
___
To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
Re: Interstate transactions and the Big Lies
I don't think that what Professor Olson postulates below is correct but I'm thinking it's a typographical error so I'll enter comments and see what he says:-Original Message- From: "Olson, Joseph E." <jol...@hamline.edu> Sent: May 7, 2013 9:43 AM To: Greg Jacobs <grjtw...@earthlink.net> Cc: "Firearms Reg, List" <firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu> Subject: Re: Interstate transactions and the Big Lies That's correct. The intermediate FFL Dealer is often referred to as the"Transfer Dealer." 18 USC 922 is focused on transfer of possession, notthe location of legal title or money.While I can agree with that I wouldn't use the term "intermediate FFL Dealer" because it implies that there is another dealer as well. In the case at handthe "Transfer Dealer" is the only dealer so while he is an intermediary between the seller and recipient buyer he is "The Dealer". All FFL dealers are intermediariesbut I don't think that's a good term.So if Bob sees a gun on the Internet that he knows Tom wants, Bob can callor e-mail the seller, Bob can send his money to the seller, and the gun canbe shipped by the seller directly to the Transfer Dealer. The TransferDealer then "books" the gun into HIS inventory. Tom repays Bob for thecourtesy and Bob tells the dealer to *transfer* the gun to Bob. TYPO Bob tells the dealer to transfer the gun to Tom. Yes?Afterthat, the transfer proceeds as any other. Tom goes to the dealer, fillsout an ATF Form 4473 and shows proper ID. The dealer calls NICS for abackground check on Tom, the transferee, and gets clearance. Bob takes hisTYPO! Tom takes his new gun, yes?new gun and goes shooting with his good friend Tom.TYPO Tom goes shooting with Bob, yes?Otherwise we created a straw buyer and an illegal transfer and I am certain that Professor Olson did NOT mean that. The dealer does hisbookwork. After a time, the Form 4473 makes it's way to BATF, getsscanned, and goes into the government's permanent record somewhere in WestVirginia.This last is a totally separate topic that I will parse for a new email.<jol...@hamline.edu><grjtw...@earthlink.net><firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu>***GRJ***On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:33 AM, Greg Jacobs <grjtw...@earthlink.net> wrote:..snip my comments.leave rules Check out the rules taken directly from the ATF website:http://www.atf.gov/files/firearms/industry/0501-firearms-top-10-qas.pdf2. May I lawfully transfer a firearm to a friend who resides in adifferent State?Under Federal law, an unlicensed individual is prohibited fromtransferring a firearm to an individual who does not reside in the Statewhere the transferee resides. Generally, for a person to lawfully transfera firearm to an unlicensed person who resides out of State, the firearmmust be shipped to a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) within the recipient'sState of residence. He or she may then receive the firearm from the FFLupon completion of an ATF Form 4473 and a NICS background check.7. May I lawfully ship a firearm directly to an out-of-State licensee,or must I have a licensee in my State ship it to him? May the licenseereturn the firearm to me, even if the shipment is across State lines?Any person may ship firearms directly to a licensee in any State, withno requirement for another licensee to ship the firearm. However, handgunsare not mailable through the United States Postal Service and must beshipped via common or contract carrier.(18 USC §§ 1715). Firearms shippedto FFLs for repair or any other lawful purpose may be returned to theperson from whom received without transferring the firearm through an FFLin the recipient's State of residence. FFLs may also return a replacementfirearm of the same kind and type to the person from whom received. 18 USC§ 922(a)(2)(A). ___ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.-- **Professor Joseph Olson, J.D.(*Hon*. Duke), LL.M.(*Tax*. Florida) o651-523-2142Hamline University School of Law (MS-D2037)f 651-523-2236St. Paul, MN 55113-1235 c612-865-7956jol...@hamliine.eduhttp://law.hamline.edu/constitutional_law/joseph_olson.html ___ To post
Interstate transactions and the Big Lies
Maybe this is commonly understood by everyone in the gun worldand maybe the Professor will tolerate this little tidbit of regulatory news...if for no other reason than it just needs to be out there for all to see and, secondarily, who knows, maybe I'm wrong. However, having just been involved in a transaction in a manner that I had not done in years it got my focus and close scrutiny so I'm fairly certain I am 100% on the mark. I happened to purchase a pristine Smith Wesson Model 12 for my SW .38/.357 revolver collection from an on-line auction site. The seller included his personal details in the box which, since he was in Georgia, I had him ship to a Federally licensed firearms dealer in my home town of Dallas, Texas. My FFL called me after the revolver arrived to tell me that the seller violated the law because he didn't use an FFL to ship the gun. This struck me as odd because the seller was very obviously knowledgeable with respect to shipping firearms interstate. So I decided a little bit of Internet legal research was in order. As a first issue, I confirmed what I always thought to be the case - nobody is shipping guns_legally _interstate without an FFL and a background check on the _recipient's_ end. We thereby establish anti-gun Big Lie number one, to wit, that there is a huge market in non-background checked firearms transactions on line; it is simply not so Illegal sales are a whole other matter - thereby establishing anti-gun Big Lie number two, to wit, that there is somehow no difference between legal and illegal sales made from the Internet, that simply everyone is buying firearms on-line without a NICS check. Malarkey (legal term from the Old Country). Legal _intrastate_ sales are different, of course. That is not the subject herein. The rules are simple - you can buy a firearm from any seller in any state wherein you do not reside and the seller does not need to ship FFL to FFL as long as the shipment is seller to FFL to buyer/recipient. The FFL on the recipient's end will take care of the NICS check and necessary paperwork and it's all legal and no new requirements for background checks are necessary. Check out the rules taken directly from the ATF website: http://www.atf.gov/files/firearms/industry/0501-firearms-top-10-qas.pdf 2. May I lawfully transfer a firearm to a friend who resides in a different State? Under Federal law, an unlicensed individual is prohibited from transferring a firearm to an individual who does not reside in the State where the transferee resides. Generally, for a person to lawfully transfer a firearm to an unlicensed person who resides out of State, the firearm must be shipped to a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) within the recipient's State of residence. He or she may then receive the firearm from the FFL upon completion of an ATF Form 4473 and a NICS background check. 7. May I lawfully ship a firearm directly to an out-of-State licensee, or must I have a licensee in my State ship it to him? May the licensee return the firearm to me, even if the shipment is across State lines? Any person may ship firearms directly to a licensee in any State, with no requirement for another licensee to ship the firearm. However, handguns are not mailable through the United States Postal Service and must be shipped via common or contract carrier.(18 USC §§ 1715). Firearms shipped to FFLs for repair or any other lawful purpose may be returned to the person from whom received without transferring the firearm through an FFL in the recipient's State of residence. FFLs may also return a replacement firearm of the same kind and type to the person from whom received. 18 USC § 922(a)(2)(A). ***GRJ*** ___ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: The strange birth of NY's gun laws
Charles Curley wrote (okay, submitted): Recent months have seen a former Marine from Indiana, a Tea Party activist from California and a nurse from Tennessee all arrested and charged in New York City for possession of firearms they had legal permits to carry back home. All were nabbed when they naively sought to check the weapon with security. These innocents fell afoul of the nation's toughest gun laws. But few New Yorkers know how those laws came to be. ...snip. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_strange_birth_of_ny_gun_laws_QJmHRpczvWipydklC80HYM It is refreshing to see a spade called a spade - Tim Sullivan was, indeed, one of the Tammany toughs who literally ran NYC with an iron fist back in the day. However, I think that by quoting Mr. Sullivan the article is slightly disingenuos: The Tammany Tiger needed to rein in the gangs without completely crippling them. Enter Big Tim with the perfect solution: Ostensibly disarm the gangs — and ordinary citizens, too — while still keeping them on the streets. In fact, he gave the game away during the debate on the bill, which flew through Albany: “I want to make it so the young thugs in my district will get three years for carrying dangerous weapons instead of getting a sentence in the electric chair a year from now.” Yes, the law was aimed at street gangs and, if you've ever seen the movie The Gangs of New York you know who the Five Pointers were. But just as Southern gun restrictions were aimed at minorities so were these New York restrictions and despite his Irish heritage you can do the research to discover that the Sullivan Act is aimed (no pun intended) at the Irish, Jewish, and Italian minorities then extant in NYC. The gangs were the helpful catalyst. ***GRJ*** PS: The current New York County (Manhattan) District Attorney enforces these laws with a vengeance. He has stretched the definition of illegal weapons/illegal knives to include every kind of typical tactical knife you can think of. The Beretta Gallery on Madison Avenue and E. 63rd Street displays about 20% of the knives that the Beretta Gallery at the Highland Park Village in Dallas displays (Mockingbird at Preston if you're down there). No lockbacks, especially those with buttons to assist with opening the blade, never mind spring assists. To be sure, many folks carry them, you can see them in the pockets of local workmen on the street here and there, but any time a NYC policemen takes it upon himself to arrest someone carrying such a weapon he has the backing of the DA's office. It's a crazy atmosphere if you're used to carrying similar items on a daily basis and I daresay most of us do that. (I do not know if the DA's counterparts in the other 4 NY counties are as bad but it would not surprise me much to find out that they are.) If the NYC Beretta Gallery actually has handguns they are nowhere to be seen. Absent a permit, don't even breathe the word handgun. I find it quite intolerable, personally, but since I'm just a visitor I get over it as soon as I get home. ___ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Puerto Rico Court: A Second Amendment Right to Carry Guns in Public Places
http://www.auctionarms.com/news/article/20110527-Puerto-Rico-Court-A-Second-Amendment-Right-to-Carry-Guns-in-Public-Places.cfm http://volokh.com/2011/05/11/puerto-rico-intermediate-appellate-court-apparently-recognizes-a-second-amendment-right-to-carry-guns-in-public-places/ Can someone please explain Puerto Rico's legal impact on general American law. Thanks. ***GRJ*** ___ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
District Court Finds No Constitutional Right to Conceal Carry
http://www.auctionarms.com/news/article/20110527-District-Court-Finds-No-Constitutional-Right-to-Conceal-Carry.cfm http://joshblackman.com/blog/?p=7002 Call me dense, but I think I agree with this.and that frightens me I hate agreeing with such things Please correct me! ***GRJ*** ___ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Failed post - I am trying again.....
On a completely intellectual level, I would like to begin a brief discussion of the case in Oklahoma wherein a pharmacist was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. All I have to go on is the store's security camera video, shown over and over on television, without the benefit of testimony, cross examination, etc. So, before I deliver my opinion, a brief but amusing short story: A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, I found myself sitting in a review class preparing for a final examination in Criminal Law. The professor, Robert LaBorde by name, was one of these amazing, real, hands on criminal lawyers who not only had a gift for teaching but had the great ability to retain interesting, real cases in his memory banks by which he was able to give his students excellent examples of criminal activity and the results in court after capture. In addition, back in the days when political correctness was very much coming into vogue, he told his classes on the very first day that he was going to insult each and every one of us so get readyetc. Professor LaBorde was Basque by heritage, however, and one of my classmates was also Basque and in that very first class, when that fact came out, Professor LaBorde stated, Well, you'll do well! He was quick like that. So, to make you understand where I am coming from, two quick insults we got used to (admittedly, we loved them) - - he always referred to the crime of arson as Jewish lightning and the crime of extortion as Italian lightning. So, in the review, the question of the difference between murder and manslaughter was discussed. Professor LaBorde used the following examples (while maybe not perfect examples I'll never forget them): You come home, walk through the door, and find your wife in/flagrante delicto/ with another man and in your sudden fury you pull out your trusty revolver from your belt and in the ensuing melee you kill him. _Manslaughter_. The opposing example was that you come home from work, find your wife /in flagrante delicto/ with another woman, you run to the closet, get your revolver, and put a hole in the dike. _Murder_. (No joke, that's what the Professor said. We howled with laughter as we reviewed and re-learned the lesson.) So, as simplistic and deliberately funny as he was trying to be, what the Professor was doing was making us think through /mens rea /- did the actor have sufficient intent to make the killing murder rather than manslaughter. In that VERY SIMPLE context, and in the context of the fact that in every self defense course you will ever take you will be told that once the threat is over so should your shooting be over, let us briefly, intellectually discuss this Oklahoma case. Two masked men, armed, enter the pharmacy. The pharmacist pulls out his own weapon and fires, hitting one perpetrator and causing the second to flee. Right there, he's done, the threat is over and he has won. But there is more. The pharmacist pursues the fleeing suspect. Not necessary, but chasing a felon is allowed. The pharmacist fails to catch him and re-enters the store. Apparently, after retrieving a second handgun, the pharmacist fires a /coup de grace**/shot or shots into the previously downed felon. Absent testimony and cross examination, specifically testimony that the felon on the ground posed a threat, is there any question that the justifiable act of using deadly force in self defense has been overcome by the act of what appears to be a pre-meditated execution? The only defense, that the perpetrator needed killin', could have been sufficient for jury nullification. It didn't happen. Do you have better facts from news reports or courtroom testimony that has been released that I have not seen? If not, and omitting the notion that felons need killin', as a society do we not have the obligation to ensure that a former victim does not become judge, jury, and executioner? I admit that I do not care that the felon was killed, I have no pity, no mercy, for armed felons. On the other hand, the law forbids the act that in this case I have witnessed on TV so many times now, and I think the punishment might actually fit the crime. Comments and opposing opinions very much welcomed! ***GRJ*** ___ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Mass attacks
1. Re:Mass Attacks do not require firearms (Firearmsregprof Digest, Vol 85, Issue 7) (Jamie Fraser-Paige) -- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 09:17:00 -0700 From: Jamie Fraser-Paigesfbear...@comcast.net To: firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re:Mass Attacks do not require firearms (Firearmsregprof See also the case over the weekend in NYC where a young man, spurned by the woman he obsessed over, used a knife and a hi-jacked car to kill four people, including his step father, his intended girlfriend, her mother and a pedestrian. The last was killed with an automobile the killer stole. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20031753-504083.html People still don't get the fact that the instrumentality isn't the issue, it is the murderous intent. Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 15:35:44 -0600 From: Joseph E. Olsonjol...@gw.hamline.edu To:mn-go...@googlegroups.com Subject: Mass attacks do not require firearms. A taxi will do. The first case made national news. I have not heard of the second case involving the taxi. But the trial of the perpetrators will slowly vanish into the mists whereas the trial of Loughner will remain headline news for two simple reasons. The obvious reason is the fact of the attack being on a Congresswoman. The second being the fact, I guess also obvious, that he used a gun. The crimes involved are all equally heinous but that gun will keep reporters riveted to the story for a long, long time. It just beez dat way.. ***GRJ*** ___ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Well regulated
One of the questions surrounding the Second Amendment is, what exactly is a well regulated militia? So, what did the phrase well regulated mean at the time? The Oxford English Dictionary has a sample. Gibbon used it twice. FYI, not only was that term anciently used and understood by the Framers, many of them had a direct connection to the use of that phrase prior to the drafting of the Second Amendment. Professor Volokh has written often on the subject, of course (viz: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/amazing.htm#45). Fully a third of the signers of the Constitution were Freemasons (some possibly after they signed; that is a somewhat cloudy history; sixteen percent of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were Freemasons as well). What these Freemasons might have incorporated from their fraternal association into their politics is, of course, unclear. Arguably, however, the language of their association with the fraternity was never that far from their minds and the phrase well regulated was extremely familiar to them. Without divulging Masonic ritual, one can find the phrase oft repeated in open sources: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Principles_of_Masonic_Law/Chapter_X http://books.google.com/books?id=yLlJMAAJpg=PA321lpg=PA321dq=%22well+regulated+institution%22+freemasonsource=blots=sarzxzWkfXsig=gHOLD0VhCKOevCUwPe6Dex4ZJtghl=enei=0ZhJTa2JFIP88Abpg8DWDgsa=Xoi=book_resultct=resultresnum=1ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepageqf=false http://www.freemason.com/library/prilaw12.htm And so forth. In every case the term well regulated does not mean controlled or supervised but guided by principles of rectitude, high standards of morality, virtue, principles, etc. ***GRJ*** ___ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Firearmsregprof Digest, Vol 81, Issue 1
I can only give you anecdotal experience. When I lived in NYC I had enough issues with their long gun licensing procedure; I never got around to handguns (but someone gave me two and I hid them in a bank vault for years). A couple of years ago my son-in-law allowed his home permit to expire. He had to turn his SIG 9mm in to the police. He never thought he would see it again. Admittedly, some of the problem was his own failure to exercise due diligence but the hoops he went through were amazing and formidable. I think it took two years until he got the permit reissued and, believe it or not, the police had his gun waiting for him! But here is another fact of interest - every trip I make to Manhattan to visit family usually gives me time to meander around the Beretta shop on Madison Avenue. They will not even show you a handgun unless you can show them a valid permit of one permutation or another. Here is another interesting fact - my twin brother lives in north central New Jersey. He did finally get a permit that allows him to buy a handgun in New Jersey - only he cannot find a gun shop anywhere near his home to make the purchase! The permit expires after 90 days so he keeps having to renew it until he gets around to finding a place to buy a gun - the stores he found sell rifles only, not handguns, and they won't even let me have my local FFL send one up there for him and all they have to do is the transfer paperwork and charge a fee! ***GRJ*** firearmsregprof-requ...@lists.ucla.edu wrote: Send Firearmsregprof mailing list submissions to firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to firearmsregprof-requ...@lists.ucla.edu You can reach the person managing the list at firearmsregprof-ow...@lists.ucla.edu When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of Firearmsregprof digest... Today's Topics: 1. In which U.S. jurisdictions is it hard to legally own a handgun? (Volokh, Eugene) -- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 08:17:03 -0700 From: Volokh, Eugene vol...@law.ucla.edu To: firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu Subject: In which U.S. jurisdictions is it hard to legally own a handgun? Message-ID: e7aaec684f9e3641b8cfc2b9a0bd965a01223d198...@uclawe2k7.lawnet.lcl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Folks: I'm looking for an authoritative list of U.S. jurisdictions in which legally owning a handgun (not getting a license to carry, but being able to legally own a handgun in one's home) is quite difficult - for instance, because there's a discretionary licensing scheme, a long (more than a month) waiting period, a huge amount of hassle, or very high fees (say, above $100). By way of comparison, I know California is a relatively high-regulation jurisdiction, but when I bought my handgun in the late 1990s, I basically had to wait 21 days (I think), pay a relatively modest fee (I forget what it was), and take a simple written test. I'm looking for jurisdictions that impose considerably greater constraints than this. I'm giving a talk on guns in America, and I wanted to draw a handgun ownership laws map of the U.S. comparable to the right-to-carry laws maps that we've all seen. I don't want to score any political points; I just wanted to accurately and simply portray where handgun home ownership is quite difficult and where it's not that difficult. Many thanks for any help you can provide, Eugene -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/firearmsregprof/attachments/20100809/30a75f61/attachment-0001.htm -- ___ Firearmsregprof mailing list Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. End of Firearmsregprof Digest, Vol 81, Issue 1 ** ___ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people
Permits
I am pretty sure Hawaii is tough on getting handgun permits, too. I recall my conversations with cowboy action shooters when I was there for a short while on Navy Reserve duty. Everything is registered. Not as crazy as NY, NJ, Chicago, or DC, probably, but not easy. ***GRJ*** ___ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
In hand
Might I sugest a colloquialism or little used term? http://www.dictionary.net/in+hand 9. Personal possession; ownership; hence, control; direction; management; -- usually in the plural. ``Receiving in hand one year's tribute.'' --Knolles. ***GRJ*** ___ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Shotguns as recommended for self-defense for some people, over handguns
An interesting subject, and not one I usually expect from my learned colleagues of the Bar. But, if Professor V allows it, excellent, because I think I know more about handling guns than handling legal treatises on constitutional law. I see that the consensus seems to be that handguns are superior to shotguns for home defense due to ease of handling and difficulties with recoil. In reality, the key is this: If someone has some preexisting skill level with shotguns, it might be worth considering for them, but for them only. Whether it is a shotgun or a handgun, a pre-existing skill is mandatory. In other words, if the average homeowner has no pre-existing skills with firearms, it matters little which weapon is selected, the homeowner is going to have difficulties if the need arises. On the other hand, pointing and shooting a shotgun loaded with birdshot has a far more likely hit percentage than a handgun if the user is lacking shooting skills. So, with no skills whatsoever, assuming such a person's family wants them anywhere near a firearm, I submit the shotgun is the better choice. With respect to recoil, I submit that shotguns loaded with birdshot have marginal recoil at best - their reputation for recoil is legendary but that presupposes buckshot, not birdshot. In a home, buckshot is a liability - it too easily pierces walls and windows. Birdshot will do the job needed if defense is required and penetration is very much diminished although I assure you that it will most definitely penetrate barriers. But, then again, so will handgun bullets, so the tradeoff is only a matter of volume, to wit, the quantity of possible penetrations from one fired shot. Shotguns of limited length are NOT AT ALL difficult to handle, not for any person, man or woman, of average strength and stature. In my experience, which is far from limited, I assure you, the recoil from a standard bird load, be it in 12, 16, or 20 gauge, is neither severe nor particularly uncomfortable, even with an 18 barrel. After 50 to 100 rounds of sporting clays with a 12 gauge pump and a long barrel you will be bruised and tired but after 24 rounds of 12 gauge, assuming 4 shots per stage, at a six stage cowboy action match, which also includes rifles and handguns, you will neither be bruised nor particularly tired from shooting. Little kids do it, small women do it, it is simply not a big deal to handle a shotgun with the lighter loads. The larger issue is portability. If a homeowner finds that s/he has to move from room to room, any long gun is a liability unless s/he trains for this. Moving through narrow halls and doorways in the dark or in panic mode is problematic with a long arm and, worse yet, a confrontation face to face can easily cause the defending homeowner to be disarmed. It can happen with a handgun as well but it is not as easy. On the other hand, if you have a shotgun in your bedroom, and that's where you'll probably be late at night, in the event that there is a break in, and if you choose to NOT confront the perpetrators, sitting in the dark with a loaded shotgun pointed at your bedroom door (for this discussion we will presume you know where your family is, or you live alone) is far more effective than a handgun. The whole issue of the racking sound of a pump gun being a deterrent is foolish for two reasons. One, as mentioned, it gives your position away and two, far more importantly, long before anyone invades your home your shotgun, regardless if it is a pump gun or has any other action, should be loaded AND racked - if the chamber is empty you are wasting one round. Your handguns wouldn't have the chamber empty (I hope); why does your shotgun? I didn't see Gran Torino yet so I do not know what they showed but the theory of using your shotgun in your home as your primary defense weapon is not at all faulty provided you know how to use it. But that was my first premise, anyway. Let's discuss one other interesting comment, the one that suggests the shotgun is intimidating if the perpetrator sees it. My friends, if you keep a gun in your home for self defense and are not prepared to use it please sell it immediately. It is a useless piece of wood/metal/plastic if you cannot pull the trigger. If you are face to face with a perpetrator and you're playing Freeze or I'll shoot! you are beyond help because at that distance you can be reached in fractions of a second. Even if you fire your weapon you can be reached. If you are face to face with death or bodily injury and you have a gun you are supposed to pull the trigger. However, I suspect that most people who are confronted in their home by an armed, or otherwise threatening stranger are, for better or worse, going to shoot first and ask questions later. I certainly hope so! Use both hands and find your phone later when you don't need to hold a gun any more! I don't want
A very brief comment on Heller
Simply this: Congratulations to us all! :-) Much litigation to follow but good job! ***GRJ*** ___ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Heller amusements
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Reading through this, I'm struck by a repeated theme: The opinion of the court repeatedly references Justice Steven's dissent, and in several instances literally belittles his view. To wit, on page 30: But even assuming that this legislative history is relevant, JUSTICE STEVENS flatly misreads the historical record. I liked the line when they called it wrongheaded. My reaction was, Are you kidding In public? OH MY GOODNESS! Is this common on a close (5-4) decision? I don't recall those kinds of things in close decisions but I'll await comments from the real scholars. And a couple of questions about the precedents that are set: The decision says the 14th amendment issue was not presented by this case (footnote 23 on page 48), although the dicta clearly supports incorporation (page 43-44). So, incorporation doesn't appear to be official. Can we expect that such a case will be filed soon? Will it have to go all the way to the Supreme Court, or will the appeals courts read the writing on the wall? The question I see is that in order to do an incorporation someone has to bring the precisely correct lawsuit. I would think that a State law has to be involved. DC not being a State could have influenced that issue but I could be very wrong. I never can figure out exactly what that District really is, anyway I'm a bit confused about the type of weapons that have been protected by this ruling. It appears to fall back on Miller and the qualifier in common use at the time. This appears to put the cart before the horse and offers an incentive to ban a particular weapon before it can be put into common use. I think the decision was pretty clear myself and I agree. If someone comes up with a new variation of a weapon that is outside the mold of normal usage I think the decision DOES stand for the proposition that it is not a protected weapon. Common use is a touchy issue, too. How common is common? How many 50 caliber shooters are there and is caliber an issue? We'll see. I'm waiting for cane-sword case my own self! Or maybe a concealed Bowie knife! ;-) However, I could see this qualifier being used to challenge a ban on scary-looking rifles (yes, I mean the expired assault-weapon ban), since they are readily available and in common use for a variety of purposes -- both sporting and defensive. Already in common use probably means all semi-automatic weapons are going to be covered but I could be wrong again! Litigation is guaranteed, I agree, a challenged is coming! And I see by the subject line of another e-mail that NRA Files Second Amendment Lawsuits In Illinois And California Following Supreme Court Ruling the floodgates are open! ***GRJ*** ___ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Heller case's resultant racial issues?
Prof. Olson writes: The reason is simple: The persistent and always tense debate over gun rights has thinly veiled underlying racial and socio-political struggles that are as old as the Union itself. I might be opening a can of worms but here goes. While I admit to being something less of a legal scholar than most on this discussion list, I do have a modicum of information on the subject, as do you all, and some experience as an American, as do you all. And I simply cannot accept Professor Olson's overall hypothesis. While I will readily admit that the roots of modern gun control in America, especially in southern jurisdictions but perhaps in all, is doubtlessly racial, it seems to me that the thin veil of race being the reason for gun control has long since evaporated, at least in its original context. I can simply accept it as a social issue, or socio-political is that's more comfortable, as opposed to a legal issue. Except for a small group of either (1) clear headed, educated legal scholars or (2) radically closed minded but still educated legal scholars it really is not a legal issue, just an emotionally charged social issue. The members of this esteemed group falls into the former, of course, but when some of the greatest liberal, legal minds in the country agree with our position that leaves but a few (dare I say a noisy few?) who simply stand radically opposed to guns and find it easy, and necessary, to twist the right to keep and bear arms into something it never was or was never intended to be. That said, it is my experience that, as a group, black Americans, Hispanic Americans, and even some other non-white classified Americans are not clamoring to support the right to keep and bear arms in overwhelming numbers. On the other hand, what I do see is unfortunately large numbers of black Americans hand in hand, actually, I like lockstep better for that cliche, with certain white Americans, opposing the right to keep and bear arms. What I notice is that in great numbers the white Americans in this high stepping group are mostly well educated and affluent to some degree. And seriously misguided. Bearing that in mind, the socio-political aspect of Professor Olson's hypothesis makes great sense, but the racial aspect does not because whites trying to keep guns away from blacks is, simply put, ancient history. Whites trying to ensure that their police have guns while their neighbors across town do not seems to be the essence of the debate these days. The District of Columbia, which is very heavily black, includes the above referenced black locksteppers, the folks who simply do not think that their neighbors should own guns and, so, they write laws that are patently unconstitutional to ensure that this is accomplished. Therefore, it is my opinion, for what little it is worth, that the future of the debate will remain in the socio-political context only, that race will play no role, and that the issue, after Heller settles the individual rights issue favorably, and assuming the SCOTUS never applies the Second Amendment to the States, will be exactly how much local or Federal control is reasonable to exercise over an individual's right to own firearms, or any arms for that matter. This is certainly cultural, and it is definitely not an easy topic, but it should result in a very inspiring discourse; on that I know can agree with Professor Olson! ***GRJ*** ___ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Not absolute
At 02:00 PM 4/27/2008, From Prof Olson's notes about Marion Hammer's comments: The right to control one's property is not absolute. I can't thank the Professor enough for that piece, which I had not read previously. In summary it says more about what i was suggesting in my last message than I think I was prepared to say myself at the moment I wrote it. The right to control one's property is not absolute. Excellent. Neither is the right to speak freely about anything, anyone, any time, in any way absolute. Neither is the right to keep and bear arms absolute. Therein lies the framework for the future discourse, to use the Professor's word! Excellent! ***GRJ*** ___ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Heller case's resultant racial issues?
I cannot tell and I apologize. I have re-read that message and it simply did not come in correctly. I have been properly chastised and I'll try to get underneath the text from now on to see what the origins are. ***GRJ*** At 04:33 PM 4/27/2008, Joseph E. Olson wrote: Greg, Can't you read e-mail properly? You've got it ALL wrong. If you can't be careful, don't say anything. One has to be careful in copying things into replies/forwards. CONTRARY TO APPEARANCES OF THIS E-MAIL, I DID NOT write THE QUOTED LANGUAGE. Anyone who has been reading my postings on FIREARMSREGPROF for the past 10 years, would certainly suspect, if not KNOW, that to be the case! LET ME REPEAT THAT -- I DID NOT write THE QUOTED WORDS. http://hq.ssrn.com/Journals/RedirectClick.cfm?url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=691827partid=47512did=24820eid=35845063MAXINE BURKETT WROTE THAT STATEMENT. It was in an article, written by http://hq.ssrn.com/Journals/RedirectClick.cfm?url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=691827partid=47512did=24820eid=35845063MAXINE BURKETT, who quite erroneously, IMHO, thinks that racism has something to do with the Second Amendment. She is another Carl Bogus in her views. In my post, it is easy to identify the real author rather than the commentator. In your reply/forward, the commentator (me) is made to appear to be the author of the views. This is a quirk in e-mail software but one that the sender of the response CAN prevent by foresight and action. It's nice that you don't accept Professor's Olson's overall hypothesis, because you've got it all f**ked up! Go read http://hq.ssrn.com/Journals/RedirectClick.cfm?url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=691827partid=47512did=24820eid=35845063MAXINE BURKETT's article which I cited (not accepted, praised, or validated) and see what SHE says. HER VIEWS, not mine. I know how this sort of thing starts out and that it has to be stopped at once. I've been the victim before of this process whereby a poster is turned into an author through someone else's sloppy e-mail reply or forward. I'm still trying to kill off a recurrent e-mail FROM the year 2000 in which I am made to look like the author of certain controversial statements. Statements that I never made. Professor Joseph Olson, J.D., LL.M.o- 651-523-2142 Hamline University School of Law (MS-D2037) f- 651-523-2236 St. Paul, MN 55113-1235 c- 612-865-7956 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Greg Jacobs mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/27/08 3:42 PM [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/27/08 3:42 PM Prof. Olson writes: The reason is simple: The persistent and always tense debate over gun rights has thinly veiled underlying racial and socio-political struggles that are as old as the Union itself. I might be opening a can of worms but here goes. *** And I simply cannot accept Professor Olson's overall hypothesis. Of course not, it is NOT Olson's hypothesis to begin with! ___ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Not absolute
= At 04:28 PM 4/27/2008, Jon Roland wrote: A right not being absolute doesn't mean the government has the power to restrict it legislatively. Constitutional rights are immunities against actions by government officials, not rules for adjudicating conflicts of rights among private parties. Legislators can enact judicial jurisdictions and statutes within which courts may, by due process, disable the exercise of any right, upon proof that if not disabled some violation of another persons rights would be likely to occur, or as a penalty or compensation for having violated someone's rights. But that does not imply the power to enable law enforcement officers to arrest someone for violating a statute that seeks to prevent some future injury, especially if the theory of causation involved is unsound. With all due apologies to Professor Olson, and because of my misreading of the authorship or, actually, inability to identify the authorship of the Maxine Burnett piece, I will not engage that particular topic further. However, I will engage this narrow topic that arises from a point I seem to have made. My first question would be a straight counter-point to Jon's opening statement (I do believe I am correct this time in ascribing authorship to Jon Roland) - if a right is not absolute, how can it not mean that the government does not have the power to restrict it legislatively? (Somehow I actually think that last is not a double negative but I apologize for the poor constriction anyway.) I understand the point Jon makes that follows his opening statement with respect to adjudicating conflicts of rights between individuals. Inasmuch as the statement is completely declarative, to wit, the right is not absolute, that would have to include private disputes; nonetheless, it is unnecessary to misdirect this discussion with respect to individual/private disputes so I shall avoid that as I inquire into the higher issue - does a right not being absolute ever permit government to restrict it legislatively or are such restrictions solely limited to the private arena, in which case my question would end right here. I am not going to answer the question, just ask it - If Congress shall make no law is not absolute, then shall not be infringed ought to be similarly non-absolute, thereby permitting Congress to reasonably restrict the right in question. I believe that to be the case but I am certainly open to being disabused of that notion by hard evidence to the contrary. ***GRJ*** ___ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Statements from police and legislators that shall-issue hasn't led to the gun misuse that they had expected
At 02:00 PM 2/12/2008, you wrote: I don't have it in writing here (since I retired to Florida), but the Harris County (Houston), TX, county prosecutor was a CC opponent who changed his perspective about 5-6 years after Texas passed it's CCW law in 1995. Jim Dark at TSRA or John Ridlehuber with TX Concealed Handgun Assn might have the cite handy. I ahve read that, probably in the NRA magazine! ***GRJ*** ___ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Shotgun/handgun self defense comparison
At 02:00 PM 2/6/2008, EV wrote: Can anyone please point me to a good discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of shotguns vs. handguns for self-defense? The more specific the cite, the better. Many thanks, JW wrote: I still haven't unpacked book boxes here in sunny Florida, but look up Fackler -- he showed a similar spread, but with a mortality rate about 15% lower than the above figures: shotgun 75% rifle (centerfire) 60% handgun 35 or 37% Martin Fackler, LTC, MC, USA(ret) Intl Wound Ballistics Assn Either way, with the heavier projectile load and limited spread at in-house ranges (figure about 1 spread per yard of shot travel), damage from a shotgun is obviously more massive. Charles's other observations are spot-on. And there were other replies as well. There are also about 80 million opinions out there but citing Fackler's mortality rates leaves out an interesting factor with respect to the precise question asked, to wit, is there a good discussion of the comparison between shotguns and handguns in self defense situations. So, not having a cite, let me create my own personal cite: On any given day, I have at least one handgun with me, sometimes two, occasionally three, especially if you include the truck gun. Four, if I carry three and include the truck gun. Never mind why I would carry three. Offhand, I know I did it once when I was going to a concealed handgun class to renew my CHL and I knew I could present a good example of how to get the job done and still be totally concealed. Other times? Don't ask. Point being? Except when I am in my bedroom I NEVER have a shotgun with me and, even then, it is cased but easily available in a closet. Summary? The advantage of a handgun over a shotgun is that the handgun is always there when you need it and the shotgun ain't! Gunwriter Clint Smith says he figures he can use his handgun to fight his way to his long gun. And since Massad Ayoob was referenced I'd recommend finding some articles by Clint Smith in a similar vein. However, I'd argue that by the time he got to his long gun he would probably have already won the fight with his handgun. Lethality is not the decisive point - availability is. There is no comparison between the two with respect to a gunfight where a shotgun can be deployed. The advantage of shotgun rounds are that they are considerably more effective at typical gun fight distances and continue to be effective at greater distances when the handgun's inherent inability to be accurate begins to cause its rounds to lose all effectiveness for non-warriors/non-trained personnel/etc. Not everyone can kill an enemy at 100 yards with a handgun as described by the late, lamented Col. Jeff Cooper. But, as a rule, you won't need a handgun at even 25 yards; running away will probably work. Having a shotgun at 25 yards, however, makes you exceedingly deadly - the second advantage of the shotgun. But who carries a shotgun except police and soldiers? Carrying is the handgun's advantage, pure and simple. Professor, feel free to quote me. :-D ***GRJ*** ___ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Parker to SCOTUS (Guy Smith)
It looks as if the 2A showdown might come to pass. Washington, D.C., announced they will appeal to the Parker case. I won't hold my breath waiting to see if the SCOTUS actually hears it ***GRJ*** ___ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
A bogeyman under every bed redux
Sorry if this is late in being sent; I'vr been off my computer and I cannot reply remotely: From: Greg Jacobs [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Apr 19, 2007 2:21 PM To: firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu Subject: A bogeyman under every bed - a brief response Professor Joseph Olson asks: Seriously, is there anything that some Jewish people somewhere DON'T see as a bogeyman? I was certainly unaware of this one and I'm pretty well-educated. Education has nothing to do with it. First, if you're not Jewish, you cannot possibly imagine the paranoia that runs deeply through the Jewish community. As a matter of fact, I could stop right there with that thought and I would have answered your question. You can't imagine the crap I have to put up with (which also explains why I avoid New York to the best of my former New York born and bred ability). But there is far more - because I think we're looking at the typical, NYC liberal side of the Jewish community. Therefore, everything that opposes their misguided viewpoint of the world is not only somehow fascistic, is is perceived as anti-Semitic. Moreover, and this is important, it is easily BENT into something anti-Semitic because it suits their world view and assists them in their knee jerk opposition to what we all see as common sense solutions to various issues that confront us, guns and gun laws being the particular focus of this august group. Mayor Bloomberg being Jewish makes attacks on him or his idiotic view of the American scene easy to call anti-Semitic for the paranoid amongst his fans and supporters. The use of some universal symbol that others have misused in days gone by is immediately twisted to suggest that it is aimed at Jews because how can it be aimed at His Moronicness? I hope that helps. ***GRJ*** ___ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Lethal theories, legal theories, do they even exist?
At 02:04 PM 11/27/2006, you wrote: It seems to me that many assault weapon and handgun bans, and other firearm laws are based on implicit theories of lethality derived from the media rather than actual empirical evidence of lethality and effectiviness of firearms in combat. As a general rule, I would submit that no firearms laws are based on anything even close to a sensible theory, never mind a theory of lethality. Twisted, irrational theories, allegedly legal theories, and if it looks lethal it's bad for the chillun - those are about as close as one can get to modern OR EVEN OLD theories. ***GRJ*** ___ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Churches
Joseph E. Olson asked: (1) I need information on how CCW-states handle the question of licensed carry in churches. (2) Also, other than in Minnesota, have there been challenges to the procedure? As usual, I need it ASAP. You are correct about Texas. A house of worship must post a statutory sign to prohibit guns inside. However, one should be very careful - many churches, synagogues, and mosques have schools inside the buildings. It could be argued that the schoolhouse gun prohibition applies. At least in that section of the building. I just carry discreetly and ensure nobody asks or thinks about such things. If you have a few minutes: www.packing.org has this: F.A.Q. Carrying concealed weapons in your own state Q: What places are off limits in XYZ State? A: Using the Drop down menu above out from State CCW Info. Select the state you wish to find info about and click on it. When you get to that state scroll down to the section, Places Off Limits. Your answers will all be there. ***GRJ*** ___ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Re: Query from an employer-side lawyer about employer concealed-carry policies (Jon Roland)
At 02:01 PM 7/25/2006, you wrote: This question has come up from time to time. It seems clear that the bulk of precedents does not support a premises proprietor (which would be the role of an employer) being liable for the criminal wrongdoing of persons on the premises, as long as there was not clear evidence of instigation or incitement. The presumption is in favor of the proprietor, although one never knows what a jury might do. What a jury might do, and what the law is on appeal, could be very different, true. But jury decisions that fly in the face of established law don't usually survive unless an appellate court finds some reason to change the law and in this case I cannot imagine that happening. I have searched for cases in which the victim of a crime has sued the proprietor for preventing him from defending himself, or being defended by another who was disarmed by the proprietor, but not found any, at least none that made it to the appeals level. Because there is little argument on the subject? One wonders I have suggested that we be on the lookout for such a case and push it if it comes up. To my mind, the greater liability falls on the proprietor who prevents someone from defending himself or others. If we got one such case, there could be a sea change in legal advice on the issue. I disagree totally. Notwithstanding my personal concern for the RKBA, I have always maintained that the person in control of premises, whether home ownership or commercial ownership or as a lessee, it matters not, has the complete and exclusive right to determine whether or not to permit firearms on the subject premises. That being the case, if anyone ever sued an employer as Mr. Roland noted, it is likely that either the juries have routinely held against the employee or that the trial courts ruled against the employees and the cases simply do not get appealed because the law is so clear. Might I add that the same applies to any Federal premises as well, except, MAYBE, national parks and wildlife areas. MAYBE. If we didn't have to confront the sovereign immunity defense, one could make a case for any victim of a crime suing the government for preventing bystanders from being armed, and thus defending him, in a public place such as a street. That would have likely been a winning case in the Early Republic. Since the sovereign immunity doctrine is kind of ancient I have to wonder if even way back then suing the government would have been successful. Speculative, at best, of course, but I'd weigh in with a no vote unless some precedent or some kind of parallel exists in the deep recesses of the early Federal court reports. ***GRJ*** ___ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Drop in FFL numbers in the 1990's.
As an FFL holder for more than 20 years, let me repeat the points y'all made with brief comments: The number of gun dealers in the United States has plummeted 78 percent in the past 10 years as tens of thousands of home-based dealers surrendered their federal licenses. http://www.startribune.com/484/story/322320.html IMHO, the single major reason for the hugh drop in the 1990's was the clarified and more objective definition of dealer in the NRA-backed 1986 Volkmer-McClure Act. Prior to that, ATF had great success in convicting (and/or threatening) people who sold any more than two (2) firearms in a year. Any gun seller might fit under the loose definition in the 1968 Gun Control Act. ATF's advice to anyone who inquired was get an FFL, it's only $5 and a hugh number of persons who never were real dealers got a FFL (and had to keep records, etc.). So pre-1993, the vast majority of FFL's were held by ordinary non-dealers. When the fee increased by 40 times AND there was no further threat that a few sales from a personal collection would lead to a federal felony conviction, most FFL holders saw no need to continue their licenses. They never really needed one and they certainly didn't now. So they dropped out of the system. That probably accounts for over 95% of the non-renewals. I do not believe that. I, for one, enjoyed holding an FFL, I enjoyed the catalogs I got, and I enjoyed being able to buy a gun for myself, here and there, at a good price with no hassle. I enjoyed doing it for friends once in awhile, too. I did not get my FFL for the reasons identified above nor did I give it up for that reason, either. Don't forget the 1994 changes, to include ATF insistence on compliance with local zoning regulations (a 10th Amendment violation?) and more detailed descriptions of the business premises. There was a concerted campaign under the Clinton administration to discourage or drive out of business so-called kitchen-table FFLs and anyone else they could intimidate into dropping their license. That is entirely correct. I was warned by the ATF that the definition of being in the business required certain affirmative acts and I was warned to anticipate an inspection of my business premises. A I was never going to permit ATF to willy-nilly search my home I surrendered my licence and bound books to remove the threat. The biggest drop was 1994-1997, IIRC, the three year licensing cycle after the new requirements and fee increase. The fee increase certainly added fuel to the fire. IMHO that also lead to many of the former FFLs doing the gun show circuit. Had the ATF let them retain their FFLs, the record-keeping requirement (and NICS checks) would cover a significantly higher percentage of gun show transfers. I was disinclined to do that, it was far more of a hobby than a business. I am certain I was not alone in that respect. Another factor would be the requirement (inserted, as I recall, in a 1994 statute) that dealers be in compliance with local zoning laws. Most of the home dealers are of course zoned residential, and thus couldn't qualify even if they wanted to pay the higher fees. As I recall, that was a possible issue but I did not push it because there were stronger reasons to abandon the business. What's interesting is that the original GCA 68 made getting an FFL very easy and cheap, on a theory that since a licensed dealer has to keep records, and a nonlicensee does not, it was wise to encourage people to have licenses. Thus the definition of what it took to become a dealer (and of who could be punished for not getting a license) were kept very broad, and the price of the license was kept very low. The reduction in licensed dealers is nothing any antigun organization should boast about! The only real beneficiaries are the storefront dealers, who found their competition reduced. Likely, that's true in all respects. As a matter of fact, my first FFL was obtained when I lived in a jurisdiction where I could not really deal in guns or even own firearms easily. I obtained a Curio license to avoid the local gendarmes from annoying me. Years later, I moved to a far better jurisdiction, applied for a new license with a change of address, and the licence ATF sent me was a full blown dealer's license. I was stunned. I had not asked for it. Until the rein of the Clintonistas it was never a problem. ***GRJ*** ___ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
NFA issue
I ran the antique shotgun thing by my class 4 dealer and got the following reply; it is totally his and I have not verified the statute or the regs: Not a Hypothetical situation. Real Life NFA Law, First, to be considered to be a modern firearm is has to be made after 1899 and be able to shoot smokeless powder. Anything else made before 1899 and can be fired with black powder is by BATF defination as a Non-gun and does not require a BATF form 4473 to purchase such items. So, if an object was made before 1899 and is not a gun then there is no such laws that can be applied to a non-gun. A black powder firearm can be any length, have any size stock, and can shoot as many times as possible. When talking about a short bbl rifle or shotgun or pistol with a stock, anything goes as long as it is a real antique. ***GRJ*** ___ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Follow-up re motor vehicles
At 02:00 PM 1/15/2006, Guy wrote: I'm not convinced on this approach. That makes two of us. I presented it as a possibility. Let's assume for the moment the destination is not a workplace, but another person's home. Is the right of this homeowner secondary? Never. If Maggie doesn't like guns, and doesn't want John to bring his gun onto her property, she can keep him from doing so. Ignoring for the moment the lacking of individual standing that a corporation has, why would their property rights have a secondary status? I created the argument that I submitted more for the sake of discussion than anything else - I didn't say I really liked it. :-D ***GRJ*** ___ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Correct re Texas
At 02:00 PM 8/10/2005, you wrote: Texas. With a few exceptions (subject to automatic prohibition), ALL private property owners in TEXAS, including churches, must post a state specified sign in order to exclude permit holders carrying a firearm Sports arenas are private, for example, racetracks, etc., but they don't have to post the sign, they have an automatic ban. ***GRJ*** ___ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
2nd Circuit takes a turn for the worse
I received this yesterday. As I read it, the Court is right on the PI Clause but its opinion about an individual right is contrary to current scholastic and political thought on the subject. But this is the group to ask. I hope that the NRA, CCRKBA, SAF, and other such groups did not support this litigation. By now they should know that trying to get license recognition this way is futile. ***GRJ*** == 2nd Circuit Upholds New York Handgun Limits New York state's residency requirement found not to curb 'right to keep and bear arms' New York state's handgun licensing scheme does not violate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled. Upholding the dismissal of a suit brought by an out-of-state resident barred from being allowed to carry a handgun under the licensing scheme, the circuit also found in Bach v. Pataki, 03-9123, that the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV cannot preclude New York's residency requirement in light of the State's substantial interest in monitoring handgun licenses. Judge Richard Wesley wrote the opinion for the unanimous three-judge panel. The suit was brought by David D. Bach, a Virginia resident who is licensed in that state to carry his Ruger P-85 9mm pistol. Bach wanted to bring the weapon with him during regular visits to his parents in upstate New York. Bach works as a lawyer with the Navy's Office of the General Counsel. He also holds a Department of Defense top security clearance, is a commissioned officer in the U.S. Naval Reserve and is a veteran Navy SEAL. He claimed that he wanted to carry the weapon because during the trips to see his parents, he and his family travel through areas with extremely high crime rates. Bach reported reading about unarmed law-abiding citizens being slain by sadistic predators despite the exceptional efforts of law enforcement. After being informed by the New York State Police that he would not be eligible for an exemption from the rule that out-of-state residents cannot obtain permits to carry handguns, Bach filed suit in the Northern District. But his claims that the bar on nonresident permits violated the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms and the Privileges and Immunities Clause were dismissed by Northern District Judge Norman A. Mordue. Mordue held that Bach could not allege a constitutional right to bear arms because the Second Amendment is not a source of individual rights. And the Privileges and Immunities Clause was not violated by the permit rule, he said, because the factor of residence has a substantial and legitimate connection with the purposes of the permit scheme such that the disparate treatment of nonresidents is justifiable. The 2nd Circuit panel said that New York regulates handguns primarily through Article 265 of the Penal Law, which creates a general ban on handgun possession, and Article 400 which carves out an exemption for licensed use of handguns. Judge Wesley noted that Bach had asked the 2nd Circuit to declare the right to keep and bear arms to be an individual, rather than a collective right. In doing so, he invoked dicta in a 2001 5th Circuit case (U.S. v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203) and a U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel opinion. STATE'S ARGUMENT New York state countered by arguing that the Second Amendment is only a guarantee to the states of the collective right to fortify their respective 'well regulated' militias. Although the sweep of the Second Amendment has become the focus of a national legal dialogue, we see no need to enter into that debate, Wesley said. Instead, we hold that the Second Amendment's 'right to keep and bear arms' imposes on only federal, not state, legislative efforts. In so holding, Wesley said the 2nd Circuit was joining five other circuits, and it was following the lead of the U.S. Supreme Court in Presser v. Illinois, 16 U.S. 2252 (1886), which he said stands for the proposition that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, whatever else its nature, is a right only against the federal government, not against the states. As to Bach's argument that the handgun law discriminates against nonresidents with regard to a protected privilege under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, Wesley said the court was rejecting that challenge because New York's interest in monitoring gun licenses is substantial and New York's restriction of licenses to residents and persons working primarily within the State is sufficiently related to this interested. That monitoring interest, he said, is in essence, an interest in continually obtaining relevant behavioral information -- licensing officers having the power to revoke licenses for poor judgment based, in part, on local incidents. Wesley said that the rationale for monitoring is distinct from rationales rejected in other Privileges and Immunities Clause cases. Most importantly, the monitoring rationale is not an interest of merely 'general
Airports and District Attorneys Violating Federal Law?
It has come to my attention that the airports in Queens County, NY and in Albany, NY, are enforcing new York State laws with respect to innocent travelers. Apparently, if you board a plane with a legal handgun in your jurisdiction, and have to pass through one of those airports, and have to reclaim and recheck your firearm luggage, you will be arrested and jailed. If you don't have a NYC permit in Queens or a NYS permit in Albany (they are different, of course), and have a firearm, even if you brought it into NY for some legitimate reason to begin with, you will be arrested and jailed. Isn't that a violation of the Firearms Owners Protection Act or maybe even the Constitution? I'm thinking Privileges and Immunities or Equal Protection, not the Second Amendment. ***GRJ*** ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Interstate traveling issue
I was engaged in a discussion with some Cowboy Action Shooters that concerned the risks of traveling with guns from State X into the State of New York for a match. It was suggested that perhaps it would be a good idea to have a large organization like SASS [the Single Action Shooting Society] file a lawsuit to have states like NY honor the permits from other states under the good faith clause of the Constitution just like they do for drivers licenses and gay marriage. I replied that [t]hey do not use the good faith clause for drivers' licenses. There is a separate statute for that. For marriages, also, and gay marriages, whatever they might be, will not be recognized state to state without state agreements or a Federal requirement. It will take a Federal law to make the [carry] permits nationally recognized or a law in each of 50 states to do it, or reciprocal agreements. I was then challenged to take a look at Article IV Section 1 and 2 of the US Constitution. Nothing like a challenge to a cowboy lawyer, right, so I cut and pasted the relevant sections and wrote the following: Okay, let's see what they say. Section. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. Section. 2. Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States` Those would be the applicable parts I am sure that [ER] is referring to. Let us examine those in a bit more detail. If he means that Full Faith Credit should apply then you will note that that particular reference applies specifically to public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings. Licenses to drive, marry, or carry weapons are NONE OF THOSE THINGS! Therefore, FFC does NOT apply. Period. That is well settled law throughout the country. In order to ensure that licenses such as these are recognized across state boundaries reciprocal statutes or agreements are required, or a Federal law. Most licenses are not so recognized, such as licenses to practice law (I have five, by the way), pharmacy (I have two), medicine, optometry, veterinary medicine . . . and the list goes on. No full faith and credit. The clause does not apply. So, when you read Article IV, Section 1, it must be read more carefully. Getting to Section 2, we find the citizens of each state being entitled to the privileges and immunities of the several states. Whatever that or they might be, which is a matter of great interest to this discussion. The licenses in question are, most assuredly, a privilege granted by each state, so why are they not automatically recognized by the several states without additional agreements or statutes? Simple. They are not privileges of the citizens of any state that come to the person automatically by way of the citizenship. Put another way, citizenship does not grant the privilege. Therefore, since tests are required, or other formalities, the automatics of the PI clause of Article IV, Section 2, do not apply. End con-law lesson. So, how far wrong am I? I wrote all that off the top of my head and if I am wrong I need to retract what I said, apologize, and correct myself. Thanks. ***GRJ*** ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Re: Interstate traveling issue
At 03:10 PM 6/22/2004, Jon Roland wrote: This raises a more fundamental issue: what constitutional power does state or national government have to license anything. If we take seriously the Fifth Amendment prohibition on disablement and deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and extension of the jurisdiction of the federal courts to questions involving such rights of a citizen against his state, then every person has a public right to do anything the legislative branch does not have the power to legislatively disable or deprive one of. I think that is summed up as if it doesn't say you can't, then you can. But I think the real issue there is not what is specifically said or unsaid, but how much is implied by extension from other provisions of the Constitution. We didn't get the changes in the 1960s civil rights cases by much more than a thin thread of implication from the Interstate Commerce Clause. The Ultimate Issue then might become exactly what does the legislative branch ... not have the power to legislatively disable or deprive one of that the courts might not have even considered yet? Skipping s few logical steps, one reaches the conclusion that the only power of government to license anything is the power of a proprietor to license the use of something it owns. Does the state own, as sole proprietor, the exclusive right to pursue any occupation, to travel, to carry a firearm, or any of the other things other than use of its land, facilities, equipment, and such? The simple answer is no. In reality, to my way of thinking at least, that is a justifiable libertarian position to take. However, while I enjoy the picture it paints, I have a hard time believing that the states do not have at least some kind of ownership or proprietary interest, if not power, to control certain behaviors or activities, whatever they might be, if only for the public weal, if for no other reason. Maybe that's my liberal side speaking out but I didn't know I actually had a liberal side Then, again, once the states get involved in certain activities, let's use road construction for one, do they not by extension get an ownership interest in the roads that they build? Arguably, the funds are the money of the taxpayers, and are public funds, but those funds are delivered to the states for the completion of state functions. Does that give the states no proprietary interest? All a state can do, under this line of reasoning, is judicially disable the exercise of a right and deprive one of the exercise of it. It can't forbid the exercise of the right to all persons it does not issue a permit to. This means that if a state wants someone to stop carrying a firearm, or operating a vehicle, or practicing law, they have to petition a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain a court order for disablement and deprivation, after proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the right, if not disabled, would pose an unacceptable risk to the public safety or order, or as the lawful penalty for an offense. What makes the operation of a vehicle a right? Where is that enumerated? We can argue all day about whether or not the right to keep and bear arms in the Federal Constitution applies to the several states and we can even point to the several states' constitutions which so often contain RKBA sections or one sort or another. But if the state creates courts for the fair and equitable enforcement of its laws does it not have a proprietary interest in those courts and who can prosecute causes therein? While it is presumed that an individual can always prosecute his or her own cause, where it there a right that permits anyone to do so for anyone else? ...snip interesting issue of the state certificate I will snip the Hiibel case issue, too, but respond to it by saying that in that instance, I agree with Mr. Roland one hundred percent. I find that decision most distressing and his brief analysis quite correct. ***GRJ*** ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
First five words?
Congress shall make no law Now that gives one pause In light of some of the so-called new rights we have developed in the not too distant past, privacy being one of the most significant, can it be that not enumerating rights, granted or guaranteed, is no bar to additional rights, and that they actually can be FOUND in the shuffle? ***GRJ*** At 07:54 AM 4/15/2004, Charles Curley wrote: On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 07:03:11PM -0700, Joe Waldron wrote: It's not just gun rights for us, it's the Bill of Rights, [snip] In a sense, the foregoing is true. Many SA supporters are truly BoR supporters that any infringement of those guaranteed rights tends to get our attention. I guess we're all libertarian freedom lovers at heart. But the bottom line is that we cannot back off Bush now and let Kerry get elected. That is purely unacceptable to my one issue voting arm when I get into the voting booth. As a general rule, the Democrats want to eliminate the 2nd and 10th amendments and half of the first. The Republicans want to ditch the 4th and 5th amendments and the other half of the 1st. But if I had to cut back to one amendment, the second is it. As long as the 2A is widely exercised, the people retain the power to fix the system. Take away the 2nd and the others aren't worth the parchment they're written on. How about we trim the entire Bill of Rights back to its first five words? And make that edit retroactive to 1789? It is important to recall the origin of the BoR, specifically that it is the result of a political compromise between the federalists and the anti-federalists. Madison had to craft it so as to attract enough of both camps to get majorities in enough states to get ratification. He was willing to lose the ends of the spectrum, such as Patrick Henry (who stomped out of the Virginia Convention saying that he smelled a rat, and never accepted nor sought federal office). Several of the states appended proposed Bills of Rights to their ratifications of the original constitution. It is instructive to read those, and learn how horribly little Madison and the subsequent ratification process left us. It is similarly instructive to read anterior documents like state BoRs, the English BoR, and Magna Carta. On one point the federalists were correct: if you have a BoR and do not enumerate a right, it will get lost in the shuffle. In spite of the IXth and Xth Amdnts, by and large that has happened. -- Charles Curley /\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign Looking for fine software \ / Respect for open standards and/or writing? X No HTML/RTF in email http://www.charlescurley.com / \ No M$ Word docs in email Key fingerprint = CE5C 6645 A45A 64E4 94C0 809C FFF6 4C48 4ECD DFDB ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
All rights
At 02:00 PM 4/14/2004, you wrote: [snip] Surprisingly, the issues that have most alienated many gun groups from the Bush administration have little to do with firearms, but rather with the Patriot Act and other homeland security measures instituted after Sept. 11. Opposition to such laws has aligned gun-rights activists with unlikely partners, such as liberal Democrats and the ACLU. It's not just gun rights for us, it's the Bill of Rights, [snip] In a sense, the foregoing is true. Many SA supporters are truly BoR supporters that any infringement of those guaranteed rights tends to get our attention. I guess we're all libertarian freedom lovers at heart. But the bottom line is that we cannot back off Bush now and let Kerry get elected. That is purely unacceptable to my one issue voting arm when I get into the voting booth. ***GRJ*** ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
