Re: The federal ban on gun possession by people who have been committed to mental institutions
You are looking for the provisions under the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (HR 2640). This act affects state appeals and federal appeals of mental health disqualifications. Last year I wrote of two appeals processes established (BATF and NY state) which I've pasted below. NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (HR 2640) revisited I thought we might see results from the appeal process established by HR 2640 of 2007 by now. Well it seems we've just established an appeal process in the BATFE about a year and a half after President Bush signed the bill into law. See the memo below: http://regulations.justia.com/view/148284/ [Federal Register: July 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 132)] [Notices] [Page 33475] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr13jy09-108] --- DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives [Docket No. ATF 32N; ATF O 1120.8] Delegation Order--Authority To Facilitate Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 1. Purpose. This order delegates the authority to exercise the authorities and responsibilities committed to the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) under the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, Public Law 110-180 (NIAA). This authority is to establish and enforce the criteria that applicable Federal departments and agencies and states use to create qualifying relief from firearms disabilities programs, to make decisions as to whether applicable Federal departments and agencies and states have properly implemented and certified relief from firearms disabilities programs under the NIAA, and to make any related determinations under the NIAA regarding such relief from firearms disabilities programs. 2. Delegations. Under the authority vested in the Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, by Title 28 U.S.C. 599A, 28 CFR 0.130-0.133, and Attorney General Order Number 3072-2009, Delegation of Authority to the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to Facilitate Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments of 2007, I hereby delegate to the Assistant Director, Enforcement Programs and Services, the authority to exercise the authorities and responsibilities committed to the Director of ATF under the NIAA. This authority is to establish and enforce the criteria that applicable Federal departments and agencies and states use to create qualifying relief from firearms disabilities programs, to make decisions as to whether applicable Federal departments and agencies and states have properly implemented and certified relief from firearms disabilities programs under the NIAA, and to make any related determinations under the NIAA regarding such relief from firearms disabilities programs. 3. Redelegation. The authority in this order may be redelegated to a position not lower than the Chief, Firearms Programs Division. 4. Questions. Questions regarding this order should be addressed to the Chief, Firearms Programs Division at (202) 648-7090. Signed: June 22, 2009. Kenneth Melson, Acting Director. [FR Doc. E9-16453 Filed 7-10-09; 8:45 am] Petition for relief of firearm disability in NY state is handled according to this guidance http://www.courts.state.ny.us/rules/chiefadmin/148_amend.pdf. Phil 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4) bars gun possession by, among others, anyone who [has] been committed to a mental institution - apparently at any time in the past. Is there any procedure through which people who have been (properly) committed to a mental institution may have that somehow set aside or vacated for 922(g)(4) purposes, on the grounds that enough time has elapsed, and that there is no reason to question their mental health now? Thanks, Eugene ___ 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: Continuing vitality IN LAW of the unorganized militia
A copy of the Maryland Alert message by Ed Patrick on Oct. 28, 2003 about a speech by Maryland Governor Herbert L. OConor (see http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/01/000409/html/am409--616.html). Gov. O'Conor called for volunteers to supply their own arms to guard Maryland in a militia during WWII. Maryland continues to recognize the unorganized Militia in its laws (see the Maryland's Attorney General opinion at http://www.oag.state.md.us/Opinions/1996/81OAG121.pdf . This copy is sent by Phil Lee : [After you read this, ask yourself, When did the government stop trusting us with our arms? and Who killed more Americans within our borders, Osama bin Laden, or Emperor Hirohito? Maybe this is a speech that should be sent to every newspaper in the U.S. (Obvious spelling errors have been corrected.)] Archives of Maryland Online, Volume 409, Page 616 State Papers and Addresses of Governor Herbert L. OConor MARYLAND MINUTE MEN RADIO STATION WFBR AND MARYLAND COVERAGE NETWORK March 10, 1942 Baltimore THE sincere hope of every person in Maryland is that our State may never experience invasion or attack. That we should consider such a thing as possible is in itself a terrible shock to the American state of mind. Nevertheless, with so much of the world overrun by the enemies of Democracy, and with the invasion of Java and New Guinea as well as other points in the Australian Archipelago fresh in our minds, we would be foolish, indeed, not to be prepared, as completely as possible, for any such happening, even here in Maryland. Our people didn't want this war and, prior to the dastardly and cowardly attack on Pearl Harbor, the thought of sending American troops to fight in far-away lands was abhorrent to the minds of every American. Recent developments of the most threatening nature, however, have completely changed America's attitude toward the present conflict. The unexpected and continuing success of the Japanese forces, who have swept everything before them except General MacArthur's heroic band in the Philippines, have impressed on our minds most forcibly that new tactics are demanded. That is why, in the recent past, there has become evident a tremendous demand on the part of Americans everywhere, that our leaders forsake a defensive policy and pursue this war in typical American fashion by carrying the offensive to the enemy at every possible point. But this plan, if adopted, will make necessary additional protective forces in the states of our Country, particularly those like Maryland, situated along the coastlines. It is about this matter of necessity that I desire to speak to the people of Maryland tonight. Let us review briefly the various steps, and then consider why and to what extent Maryland is confronted with danger and what we must do at once to protect our citizens. The Federal Government faces the tremendous task of training the largest military and naval establishment in our Nation's history. After the hundreds of thousands, and even millions, of our men are trained and equipped, they must be transported, far and wide, over the seven seas to overcome the enemy outside continental United States. Every available man in the combat forces will be needed in this far-flung offensive. This means that if any number of soldiers, trained for military operations, would be retained within the United States for guard duty, or for any other routine defense purpose, that would entail a loss to our Country's striking power. The Federal Government, of course, is the one which assumes the responsibility for the conduct of war. But the State Government has its obligation, also, to its citizens. That obligation includes protection to our people. It was for this reason that more than a year ago I asked the Maryland General Assembly to authorize the creation of the State Guard, the primary purpose of which was to have a mobile protective force ready to move in any direction to maintain the safety and security of our people and their property. It is with pleasure that I can report to our people that the State Guard is completely drilling. The State Guard numbers approximately 2,700 officers and men. Supplementing it is a Special Military Police Force, the members of which are on continuous duty and assigned exclusively to the guarding of our State's bridges, important water supplies, and other vital points, described by the War Department as having important bearing on the war effort. The number of this force is approximately 300. To the credit of the members of our present Guard, it can be said that they have responded to every requirement since our Nation entered the war, despite unexpected difficulties under which they have at times been required to perform their duties. The public will understand that up until now the State's defensive efforts have consisted mainly in protecting those installations and locations which the War Department consider as vitally important.
Re: IF you ban guns, ban knives, ... you'll need to ban 2x4's too.
It seems that the golfers were arrested pending an investigation that they acted in self-defense and did not use more force than necessary. In this, civilian gun users in this country using lethal force alleging self-defense would likely be treated similarly, not so? Phil This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. Thereâs a Reason God Put Those People on an Island: Eight people were arrested following the incident at Sundridge Park Golf Course on Sunday. Two youths, aged 17 and 13 were also taken to south London hospitals with head injuries. The 17-year-old is in stable condition in hospital while the 13-year-old was later discharged and subsequently arrested. According to reports, the players were about to tee off on the fourth hole of the course in Bromley, Kent, when they were confronted by a group of teenagers brandishing planks of wood. Despite the group threatening to attack them if they did not hand over their golfing equipment, the golfers apparently fought back. An eyewitness, who did not wish to be named, said: Everyone had a weapon and they were just trading blows. The golfers stood their ground, though. I guess because they had their clubs as protection. ⦠[British subjects are expected to submit, not fight back.] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/5310445/Golfers-arrested-after-fighting-off-gang-attempting-to-steal-clubs.html ** 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 jol...@gw.hamline.edu ___ 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: Volokh: California Court of Appeal Upholds Ban
Not to make too much of the obvious, but shouldn't the government have the burden to show the firearm proposed for banning is being used in destructive ways in the US and these ways are significantly more so than other firearms? Or, at least, show that this firearm has the potential for being so used? And, additionally, that no less intrusive method exists to mitigate sufficiently the harm/potential harm. Too much is being made of common use as a criteria for a particular firearm. The SC said that handgun couldn't be banned, since they were in common use -- they didn't imply that .28 caliber pistol being introduced by SW could be banned because this particular firearm was not in common use -- that interpretation would stand the Second Amendment on its head. Phil if you take this to the next level a common use law could preclude the introduction of any new cartridge or even any new weapon using an existing cartridge. This is why it is necessary for those knowledgeable about arms to develop an acceptable taxonomy to help the courts in determining what is in common use I would argue that a semi-automatic rifle with a .50 bore is a common weapon and there is no reason for this to be considered an exceptional weapon. I feel strongly that a strict test of exceptionalness needs to be applied for restricting a constitutionally enumerated right rather than a common use test as outlined in Heller. - Original Message From: C. D. Tavares tava...@alum.mit.edu On Jun 4, 2009, at 8:16 AM, Raymond Kessler wrote: Further, Heller seems to be limited to weapons in common use. .50 cal. Rifles are not in common use. I wonder why I don't see more discussion of the elephant in this particular room -- viz., Miller requires common use to protect a type of firearm, but many firearms not in common use are rare precisely due to pre-Miller laws that are at variance with the underlying logic of Miller. Seems to me that a ruling that we will protect your right to own popular guns isn't much different from a ruling that we will protect your right to utter popular speech. ___ 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. ___ 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: Fw: [Volokh] Eugene Volokh: Can Lethal Self-Defense, Even Against Threats of Death, Serious Bodily Injury, Rape, and Kidnapping, Be Made a Crime?
Non-lethal force? Have star trek's stun guns been developed? Oh, pepper spray? As of 1995, the American Civil Liberties Union documented 26 individuals subject to police action who died following exposure to pepper spray. In none of these cases was pepper spray listed as the cause of death, but it is unclear whether it may have been a contributing factor in some cases. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper_spray) I suspect you can find cases of death from use of any type of force, no matter how non-lethal it was intended. So, to allow any force in opposing crime, non-lethal force would have to be defined in legislation, unless we are discussing an academic exercise (actually, I suspect there would have to be a definition of approved force for self-defense which excluded use of firearms -- good luck with that). In any case, there is always the militia reason for defense of the state, unless America intends to become a nation of pacifists. And hunting, unless that to is banned, and target shooting, ... , and any other lawful activity (of which the most common have been named not to exclude the others). Phil This is a multi-part message in MIME format. Original Message Subject: [Volokh] Eugene Volokh: Can Lethal Self-Defense, Even Against Threats of Death, Serious Bodily Injury, Rape, and Kidnapping, Be Made a Crime? Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 13:32:18 -0400 From: not...@powerblogs.com To: vol...@lists.powerblogs.com Posted by Eugene Volokh: Can Lethal Self-Defense, Even Against Threats of Death, Serious Bodily Injury, Rape, and Kidnapping, Be Made a Crime? http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_05_31-2009_06_06.shtml#1243963935 The [1]Seventh Circuit's Second Amendment non-incorporation decision so suggests: Suppose a state were to decide that people cornered in their homes must surrender rather than fight back -- in other words, that burglars should be deterred by the criminal law rather than self help. That decision would imply that no one is entitled to keep a handgun at home for self-defense, because self-defense would itself be a crime, and Heller concluded that the second amendment protects only the interests of law-abiding citizens. See United States v. Jackson, 555 F.3d 635 (7th Cir. 2009) (no constitutional right to have guns ready to hand when distributing illegal drugs). Our hypothetical is not as far-fetched as it sounds. Self-defense is a common-law gloss on criminal statutes, a defense that many states have modified by requiring people to retreat when possible, and to use non-lethal force when retreat is not possible. An obligation to avoid lethal force in self-defense might imply an obligation to use pepper spray rather than handguns. A modification of the self-defense defense may or may not be in the best interest of public safety -- whether guns deter or facilitate crime is an empirical question -- but it is difficult to argue that legislative evaluation of which weapons are appropriate for use in self-defense has been out of the people's hands since 1868. Note that the court's argument isn't simply that lethal self-defense could be constitutionally limited to situations where it's genuinely necessary to protect against (say) death, serious injury, rape, or kidnapping. Rather, the argument must be that lethal self-defense could be constitutionally barred altogether. Otherwise the court's argument that That decision would imply that no one is entitled to keep a handgun at home for self-defense, because self-defense would itself be a crime, and Heller concluded that the second amendment protects only the interests of law-abiding citizens wouldn't work: The argument rests on the assumption that guns would be unusable to law-abiding citizens because [lethal] self-defense would itself be a crime. Likewise, the argument is not only that certain tools for lethal self-defense could be barred. That's the conclusion that the panel is trying to reach by arguing (I repeat) that lethal self-defense could itself be made a crime. (I read self-defense as meaning lethal self-defense in context.) Now not all bad laws, even evil laws, are unconstitutional laws. And the lower court cases (all of them pre-Heller, except Brett, N. v. Community Unit School Dist No. 303, 2009 WL 424546 (N.D. Ill. 2009)) are indeed split on whether there is a constitutional right to self-defense. But it seems to me that the case for such a right -- including a right of lethal self-defense when necessary to prevent death, serious bodily injury, rape, and kidnapping -- is very strong, even under the narrowest accepted test for recognizing constitutional rights (the Glucksberg test, from the decision that rejected a
Re: Alleged Hitler quote
See http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html and http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/law_review_articles/nazism.nra.pdf Phil On Thu, 14 May 2009 16:10:21 -0500 Raymond Kessler rkess...@sulross.edu wrote: The quote below pops up in the anti-control literature every once in a while. I have been unable to track it down to a trustworthy source. Is there such a source or is this another myth created by warriors in the culture wars? Please advise. The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so. -Adolf Hitler, 1942 http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/faq.htm#faq02 -- 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 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. ___ 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: CCW data set
You're not going to like it, but (in part) John Lott has performed the analysis you seek. Additional research questioned his results, but open minded researchers agree that no increase in violence resulted. You should contact him directly. Phil This is a multi-part message in MIME format. I may soon testify before a California State Assembly committee on the pro/cons of shall-issue CCWs. I doubt I have time to assemble the exact data I want, but suspect individuals on this forum may have it on hand or could point me to some ready-to-use data set. What I need to demonstrate is the variation in violent crime rates against national averages for X years before and after shall-issue CCWs laws were passed in each of the 30 post-Florida states. The objective (at a minimum) is to demonstrate there is no net increase in violent crime, and hopefully demonstrate a decrease. The testimony is on April 21st, and thus I do not have the time to rip through the UCS database and assemble this by hand. Any existing data sets would be greatly appreciated. Guy Smith www.GunFacts.info ___ 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: Repeal the 2nd amend?
I'd like to see Congress try such a repeal -- see http://www.bookrags.com/highbeam/election-98-gun-amendment-handily-wins-19981104-hb/ and http://www.nytimes.com/1989/04/02/us/amendment-on-gun-curbs-causes-dismay-in-nebraska.html?sec=health for indications of voter feelings demonstrated in the past 20 years. There are more pro-gun right votes that have occured (e.g. Washington state), but I have no interest to document them. Suffice to say that the Second Amendment is popular with Americans. Phil No such bill filed in the 111th Congress yet. Joe W Raymond Kessler wrote: The article below is probably just media hot-air, but I seem to remember a movement in the 80s to repeal the Second Amendment. Never got out of Congress. Any real movement currently to get a constitutional amend to remove the 2^nd Amend.? http://www.examiner.com/x-2698-Charlotte-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m3d26-Prize-fight-for-the-Second-Amendment-Levy-vs-Henigan http://www.examiner.com/x-2698-Charlotte-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m3d26-Prize-fight-for-the-Second-Amendment-Levy-vs-Henigan R ___ 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. ___ 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
None of the responders mentioned the risk of liability on injury to innocents from handgun rounds penetration and range compared to shotguns. Also, the shotgun should have a superior hit probability to the handgun for those with limited experience. In fact on this list has been a report about the shotgun's superior hit ability in combat to a limit range (60 yards?) relative to modern assault rifles. I don't have a reference currently. Phil I've often heard people say that shotguns are better than handguns for self-defense for some people. I know others disagree, but for now I just want a cite for the proposition that just as Heller points out that handguns are reasonably preferred by some, so shotguns could be reasonably preferred by others. Can anyone please pass along such a quick cite for me? Many thanks, Eugene ___ 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: Civilian legal defensive homicides
Joe Horn says I could not disagree with you more that the practices are DESIGNED to create a false appearance. It's a civil service bureacracy. Think IRS rules and regs, BLM regs and rules, etc. That opinion about practices being not designed for falsehood is hard to reconcile with the quote from the UCR Handbook that I gave. If police follow that handbook for reports to the UCR, they will ignore findings from other than the police. These findings from other sources result in 3 to 5 times as many legal civilian defensive gun use homicides classifications annually as are reported in the FBI UCR. Now, it may be that the police agencies and FBI are not trying to cook the books deliberately and that their actions are not so intended, but the FBI reports annually around 250 legal DGUs when there is evidence of many more. And, we have the UCR Handbook which explains at least part of the reason for that difference. Whether deliberately cooking the books or not, the FBI under reports legal DGUs every year by a large factor and their UCR Handbook describes practices designed to promote huge under counts of DGU homicides. That's the message. Phil Police reporting practices re: shooting reports, whether with fatality or injury or none, merely reflect shots fired, (or other weapon used) result, arrests and charges if any. As for initial reports, they mean little and are generally held for the Coroners review of the same case and add to the confusion with their OWN reports as well as their judgement: Death at the hands of another/Justified or unjustified. Final reports may be statistically counted again or not. The FBI gets these stats from reports which are computer collated and generated by all departments and coroner's offices. I assure you, no one in the police bureacracy I am familiar with is interested in cooking the books and the system does not easily lend itself to such activity. Many entries are duplicates because of FBI taking info from all sources available in multiple jurisdictions in large metro areas and not comparing URN numbers. As for reports as to when police draw their weapons, unless the weapon is discharged, no mention of the firearm being deployed is mentioned. I will tell you that in L.A. (my former jurisdiction) felony stops are utilized with drawn weapons on a regular basis, burglaries and robberies in progress are met with drawn weapons and that fact is rarely mentioned as it is generally well known that such arrests are not made by saying please submit to arrest. Defensive Citizen firearms use cases are generally classified as attempt rape, attempt burglary, attempt Robbery etc., and what the citizen did to discourage the crime. If no shots were fired, and the suspect ran away, nothing taken, no injuries, a F.I. (field interview card ) is completed and input to a computer data base which remains at the station and is used in determining patterns of crime and M.O. in certain beats. I could not disagree with you more that the practices are DESIGNED to create a false appearance. It's a civil service bureacracy. Think IRS rules and regs, BLM regs and rules, etc. Think Post Office. Joe Horn, LASD RET Autumn Rose Press Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 12:40:52 -0500From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu; [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: Civilian legal defensive homicides Clearly, the UCR definitions and police practice are both designed to create the false APPEARANCE that CLDHs are few and far between. Once again lying with statistics. This is deliberate. Don't forget that even this corrected number (13%) VASTLY UNDERSTATES the security impact of DGU's since the goal of a DGU is to neutralize the threat not to cause a homicide. That goal doesn't require a homicide because it is accomplished in 99% of the armed confrontations by a defensive display that causes the assailant to run away. The goal can be accomplished without firing a shot, wounding the assailant, or killing anyone. ** Professor Joseph Olson, J.D., LL.M.o- 651-523-2142 Hamline University School of Law (MS-D2037) f- 651-523-2236St. Paul, MN 55113-1235 c- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Philip F. Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/23/08 6:28 PM We know that the FBI does not report all civilian legal defensive homicides (CLDHs) by citizens by a significant factor. We know the FBI UCR reports a shooting death by a citizen as a DGU only if there is no question at the time of the initial investigation by police that the shooting is justified. By contrast police shooting homicides tend to bereported as justified unless an initial investigation has significant evidence to the contrary. ___ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options
Re: Police USE of firearms
I'd be interested in this data if you can find it. Not what you want, but what I've been able to find in my similar investigation: The New York City Police Department's Stop Frisk Practices: A Report to the People of the State of New York, From The Office Of The Attorney General, December 1, 1999 http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/reports/stop_frisk/stop_frisk.html and http://www.chicagoreporter.com/index.php/c/The_Numbers/d/Police_Shootings_Database Police Shootings Database -- spreadsheets for Chicago, New York, Phoenix Police shootings. giving some information about police shootings. There is an older article that I've not seen except for abstract that might be helpful in part: http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=81196 NCJ Number: NCJ 081196 Title: Shootings of and by Chicago Police - Uncommon Crises, Part 1 Shootings by Chicago Police Journal:Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume:72 Issue:4 Dated:(Winter 1981) Pages:1813-1866 Author(s): W A Geller ; K J Karales Publication Date: 1981 Phil This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. Are there Police Departments that keep stats on every time an officers weapon is drawn and aimed at another human being? Data that would record number of drawings (and reason for doing so), shootings, hits, injuries, and deaths from the officer's use of firearms. Anyone know where I can get at these? ** 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] ___ 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: Police USE of firearms
I meant to tell you about finding the NY Police Firearm Discharge Report for 2006 posted by the NY Civil Liberties Union at: http://www.nyclu.org/files/nypd_firearms_report_102207.pdf I'm sure the NYPD has reports available for other years, but I've not found them on the web. Phil This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. Are there Police Departments that keep stats on every time an officers weapon is drawn and aimed at another human being? Data that would record number of drawings (and reason for doing so), shootings, hits, injuries, and deaths from the officer's use of firearms. Anyone know where I can get at these? ** 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] ___ 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.
Civilian legal defensive homicides
We know that the FBI does not report all civilian legal defensive homicides (CLDHs) by citizens by a significant factor. We know the FBI UCR reports a shooting death by a citizen as a DGU only if there is no question at the time of the initial investigation by police that the shooting is justified. By contrast police shooting homicides tend to be reported as justified unless an initial investigation has significant evidence to the contrary. We can understand why the FBI UCR contains so low a count in self-defense homicides by examining the FBI UCR Handbook which gives guidance on reporting for the annual UCR. On the UCR Handbook (linked from: http://www.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/ucr/handbook/ucrhandbook04.pdf) page number 17, the following note is given: NOTE: Justifiable homicide, by definition, occurs in conjunction with other offenses. Therefore, the crime being committed when the justifiable homicide took place must be reported as a separate offense. Reporting agencies should take care to ensure that they do not classify killing as justifiable or excusable solely on the claims of self-defense or on the action of a coroner, prosecutor, grand jury, or court. The Handbook clearly establishes a criteria for justified homicide that doesn't match the usual notions of self-defense -- in fact, it obviously promotes a policy of police determining whether a homicide is justified notwithstanding findings by a coroner, prosecutor, grand jury, or court. Obviously, a claim of self-defense doesn't mean the homicide is justified. Just as obviously the FBI and local police authorities are too busy with real police work to go back to correct reporting the classification of homicides weeks, months and even years later based on the results in courts or other extended evaluations of the circumstances. The real question to those of us not enthralled by the bureaucracy (and the desire to defend their work) is what are the annual numbers of homicides that comport to our notions of self-defense -- especially those from legal defensive shootings? We have a hint of the scope of this under-reporting from Time magazine which published the article 7 Deadly Days July 17, 1989 (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,958158,00.html). That article reported 199 murders (charges since trials had not yet been held) and 14 civilian legal defensive homicides (CLDHs) or 6.6% of gun homicides for the week of 1-7 May 1989. A year later, Time followed-up their report with the article Death by Gun: One Year Later, May 14, 1990 (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,970085,00.html), to see the results from trials on the charged cases. They reported that there were now 28 CLDHs (13.1% of gun homicides), an increase of 100% on the original report with at least 43 cases not yet adjudicated by the one-year later follow-up. With the attitude presented in the UCR Handbook we see why the FBI UCR count of justified homicides is such a small fraction of CLDHs as evaluated by the people or other non-police agents. Phil ___ 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: Reynolds Denning, Heller's Future in the Lower Courts
Jon has shared a paper by Reynolds and Denning in this message and several more in other messages. I'm sure Jon didn't consider the dispeptic condition these articles would induce for some of us. In HELLERS FUTURE IN THE LOWER COURTS, Glenn H. Reynolds, Brannon P. Denning, Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, (406-414) Vol. 102, 2008, the Reynolds Denning state (p. 408) : Prior to Heller, only the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Emerson held that the Second Amendment creates an individual right, although it found the right was not violated by the facts at hand. (Page 408) Actually, in the Fifth Circuit's Emerson opinion, the only place creates a right appears is in note 11 to a discussion, a note pertaining to the Court's discussion of the so-called sophisticated collective rights model. In that note creates a right appears in a quoted holding from United States v. Wright, 117 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 1997) which stated that the Wright case didn't require the court 'to determine whether the Second Amendment creates a collective or individual right.' The Fifth Circuit Court's Emerson decision did not hold the Second Amendment creates an individual right. Quite the contrary the Fifth Circuit pointed out that the Supreme Court hadn't supported either of the two collective rights model of the Second Amendment in its Miller case. The Fifth Circuit Court held that Miller does not support the government's collective rights or sophisticated collective rights approach to the Second Amendment. Indeed, to the extent that Miller sheds light on the matter it cuts against the government's position. Nor does the government cite any other authority binding on this panel which mandates acceptance of its position in this respect. The Fifth Circuit Court's Emerson holding was for the standard model of the Second Amendment saying We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment. We hold, consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of individuals, including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their own firearms, such as the pistol involved here, that are suitable as personal, individual weapons and are not of the general kind or type excluded by Miller. The Fifth Circuit actually held that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals. This is the proper wording concerning a decision pertaining to the Second Amendment which was drafted to protect the pre-existing right of the People to keep and bear arms by denying the government authority to infringe this right. This same sentiment (the 2nd is a pre-Constitutional right) was stated in Heller, when the Supreme Court held 'As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), [t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . . So the Supreme Court held in 1876 that the Second Amendment didn't create a right, but protected a right of the People that existed prior to the adoption of the Constitution. And this 1876 conclusion by the Court was reaffirmed in Heller. The Reynolds Denning paper initially states a basic theme that prejudice by lower courts in favor of their own case law which is hostile to an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment would cause them to resist the Supreme Court's Heller holding. An example quote from the Reynolds Denning paper illustrates this point First, there are the institutional prejudices of the courts of appeals, favoring the status quo and possessing a desk-clearing mentality. Like the bureaucrats they increasingly resemble, the members of the appellate judiciary do not like to rock the boat. In addition, the courts of appeals have a history of more-or-less open hostility to claims of a private right to arms. The vast majority of cases to date suggest that, to the extent they can, they will try to rule against such a right. Later the paper adopts an on the one hand . . . then on the other perspective leading to a recommendation that Litigants ought to study and develop responses to Justice Breyer's interest-balancing standard of review. Reynolds Denning may be right or they may be wrong in this prediction of the future, but their discussion is suspect but it appears they are sloppy as scholastic authors in failing to give a proper discussion of the various court holdings. And it appears that their sloppiness is intentional and the thrust of their paper is toward preserving as much gun control as can be. In fact, their article seems to be promoting the idea that inferior courts may thwart the Supreme Court Heller decision. Possibly the lower courts might resist, but the 2nd Amendment's popular interpretation by the people would be at odds with that resistance. In
Re: DNA predictions flawed? DNA matches but the man doesn't.
A week ago Henry Schaffer raise questions concerning shenanigans related to ballistic fingerprinting. Today the Washington Post prints an article touching on the reliability of forensic evidence. The primary case discussed, that of a Baltimore police officer convicted of killing his mistress in whose trial testimony from Maryland State Police firearms expert Joseph Kopera using the lead analysis I mention, but also testifying (falsely, it seems) about other ballistic evidence. Moreover, Kopera claimed falsely credentials he never had. What is shocking to me is that prosecutors claimed Kopera's false credential claim 'was not grounds for reversing Kulbicki's conviction since Kopera did not perjure himself at the trial, because testimony concerning his degrees was not material'. I don't even think the few cases we know about are even the tip of the iceberg (10%) of this problem. What we know is that certain lawyers have disgraced their professional ethics to corrupt the system and others have been naive about supposed scientific evidence. The WP story is include below. The last comment by Clifford Spiegelman is particularly relevant. Phil http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2007/11/18/AR2007111801539.html?sid=ST2007111701983 A Murder Conviction Torn Apart by a Bullet In a 1995 Maryland Case, Key Testimony and the Science Behind It Have Been Discredited By John Solomon Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, November 19, 2007; A01 Former Baltimore police sergeant James A. Kulbicki stared silently from the defense table as the prosecutor held up his off-duty .38- caliber revolver and assured jurors that science proved the gun had been used to kill Kulbicki's mistress. I wonder what it felt like, Mr. Kulbicki, to have taken this gun, pressed it to the skull of that young woman and pulled the trigger, that cold steel, the prosecutor said during closing arguments. Prosecutors had linked the weapon to Kulbicki through forensic science. Maryland's top firearms expert said that the gun had been cleaned and that its bullets were consistent in size with the one that killed the victim. The state expert could not match the markings on the bullets to Kulbicki's gun. But an FBI expert took the stand to say that a science that matches bullets by their lead content had linked the fatal bullet to Kulbicki. The jurors were convinced, and in 1995 Kulbicki was convicted of first- degree murder in the death of his 22-year-old girlfriend. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. For a dozen years, Kulbicki sat in state prison, saddled with the image of the calculating killer portrayed in the 1996 made-for-TV movie Double Jeopardy. Then the scientific evidence unraveled. Earlier this year, the state expert committed suicide, leaving a trail of false credentials, inaccurate testimony and lab notes that conflicted with what he had told jurors. Two years before, the FBI crime lab had discarded the bullet-matching science that it had used to link Kulbicki to the crime. Now a judge in Baltimore County is weighing whether to overturn Kulbicki's conviction in a legal challenge that could have ripple effects across Maryland. The case symbolizes growing national concerns about just how far forensic experts are willing to go to help prosecutors secure a conviction. If this could happen to my client, who was a cop who worked within this justice system, what does it say about defendants who know far less about the process and may have far fewer resources to uncover evidence of their innocence that may have been withheld by the prosecution or their scientific experts? said Suzanne K. Drouet, a former Justice Department lawyer who took on Kulbicki's case as a public defender. Prosecutors are fighting to uphold Kulbicki's conviction, arguing that there is still plenty of evidence that proves his guilt. While much of the evidence against the petitioner falls into the category of circumstantial evidence, the state presented a mountain of evidence, both direct and circumstantial, prosecutors argued in a motion earlier this year opposing Kulbicki's request for a new trial. Police had lots of circumstantial evidence. A jacket with the victim's blood on the sleeve was found hanging in Kulbicki's closet. And four bone chips and a bullet fragment were found in his truck. Tiny drops of blood also were found in the truck, and one spot of blood on the holster of his off-duty weapon. But the blood spots were so small and their quality so poor that they could not be matched to the victim. Kulbicki's attorneys offered several witnesses who provided an alibi. The defense team also uncovered evidence that the bloody jacket had been worn by Kulbicki's teenage stepson. The stepson denied being involved in the killing. While Kulbicki's request for a new trial has been pending, a Maryland appeals court recently overturned another murder
Re: Gun Crazy
It isn't clear to me whether this part of the comment All I can say is that I wonder how the gun lobby was able to buy 5 members of the Supreme Court? is a serious question or how it relates to Herz's article? If it is a seriously intended question, I believe the questioner has taken leave of his senses. Phil This is a multipart message in MIME format. I'm sure some of you are familiar with Andrew Herz's Gun Crazy Article at 75 Boston U. Law. Rev. 57 (1995)-Some of you were probably attacked and portrayed as lackeys of the gun lobby. All I can say is that I wonder how the gun lobby was able to buy 5 members of the Supreme Court? -- The Art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike at him as hard as you can and as often as you can, and keep moving on. -- Ulysses S. Grant ___ 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?
Although responding to Greg's message, I will have a comment about one of Prof. Olson's messages too. I don't like to think of myself as belonging to ancient history, yet my life spans a time when whites tried to keep guns away from blacks. In my childhood home town, a black man (an upstanding man) was hired as deputy town constable primarily to keep black bars peaceful on Saturday nights. He was given a badge, but unlike white deputies, was not permitted to carry a gun. Even today, with the pattern of selective enforcement, driving while black is an issue in some parts of the country and blacks found with a firearm are not treated the same today as whites in many places too. Prof. Olson responding to Eugene says There is no academic study [of criminal gangs that tend to be organized along ethnic minority lines], that would be racist. I must object to this this misstatement by an otherwise very intelligent and educated person. A study of whether gangs tend to be organized along ethnic minority lines might be racist in some environments, but not necessarily so. Prof. Olson is trained in the law and not science and his experience is likely corrupted by today's environment of competing studies published not for understanding and not for science, but for issue advocacy. But Prof. Olson should train his PC comments on academics who fail in their responsibility to first principles. Truth is never racist and scientifically based studies to uncover truth aren't racist either. Phil 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
Re: Heller case's resultant racial issues?
Remember, science has been the subject of ignorant actions by bigots for centuries -- for as long as recorded history. And scientists have had to worry about their professional lives, sometimes their physical lives, for as long as we can point to the existence of science. Copernicus provides an example of one conduct (delay of publication of results) to address fear. Galileo was prosecuted was warned by the Catholic Church not to defend Copernicus' work De revolutionibus orbium coelestium on the grounds it was false and contrary to Holy Scripture. His actions provide another example. When you describe the PC environment on Campuses, all I can think is a new religion has arisen. In time, science will win the battle against the false doctrines of this religion and it will be diminished just as the Catholic Church has been diminished -- not by science and scientists but by the bigoted and ignorant actions of the Church's religious leaders as they actions are exposed for what they are. I forget the Pope, but one recently said that faith and science are not in conflict (at least not anymore). His lesson should be learned by all religions (even those of the bigots of Universities) because science has a way of winning over time. Phil Oh God, I going to have to start writing statements on this list with a dozen qualifiers per sentence. Unfortunately, another defect of e-mail is it's inability to convey sarcasm. While I don't subscribe to any position just because it is P. C., I don't want to spend the next 10 years defending myself every time I meet a liberal academic (9 out of 10 of my colleagues, all administrators, and most Board members). This statement of Phil's is NOT TRUE on college campuses in the USA (at least, not a the guiding principle). Ask the guy who got fired at the University of Oklahoma. It should be true, but IMHO it is not. Just try getting such a study published. Phil said Truth is never racist and scientifically based studies to uncover truth aren't racist either. Phil 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.
Re: New England Journal of Medicine--Guns Health
When Dr. Wintemute states (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMp0800859?query=TOC) the 30% case fatality rate for 30,674 gunshot deaths and 70,000 injuries in 2005 to compare to fatality rate for motorcyclists (4,553 deaths and 87,000 unintentional accidental injuries according to http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSF2005/810620.pdf), he should be comparing to the 5% motorcyclist case fatality rate or 30/5 = 6, not 18 as he states it. But his comparison is not fair since shootings have huge number of intentional acts and motorcycles accidents are mostly unintentional. If he wishes to compare case fatality rates of unintended shooting injuries with case fatality rates for motorcyclists, the ratio. Figure 13 of Surveillance for Fatal and Nonfatal Injuries --- United States, 2001, Sara B. Vyrostek, Joseph L. Annest, Ph.D., George W. Ryan, Ph.D., Office of Statistics and Programming National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5307a1.htm#fig13) shows fatal injury from firearm unintended injury had approximately a 10% case rate whereas motorcycle case fatal rate was about 3% in the same figure (again, nowhere near a ratio of 18). For context, we note drownings show a case rate of more than 25% in this figure. Granting, for the moment, Dr. Wintemute is correct on the annual cost of gun shot treatments as $2 billion -- which, given his record, isn't a reasonable grant -- Dr. Wintemute owes us some context for this cost. Since he provides none, we'll consider a few comparisons. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (see http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/Motorcycle_HTML/appa.html), the annual cost for motorcycle accidents is $18,327 Million ($18.3 billion) or 9 times Wintemute's firearm injury cost. This number is dwarfted (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSFAnn/TSF2005.pdf) by the 38,189 motor vehicle accident fatalities and 4,816,000 injuries which are estimated to cost $230.6 billion in 2000 (see pdf page 2 of 222). That is, intentional and unintentional firearm injury costs are less than 1% of all vehicle accident injury costs. According to a University of Michigan press release, February 24, 2003 (http://www.med.umich.edu/opm/newspage/2003/cold.htm), the U.S. annual cost of the common cold is $40 billion. So, the common cold annually costs 20 times more than Dr. Wintemute's firearm injurys. Dr. Wintemute does not regularly read of events like the killing of Yoshihiro Hattori because they happen infrequently. If he regularly did read of such events, he wouldn't have to reach back 16 years for an example. I think I could spend the next week addressing other errors made by Dr. Wintemute, but life is too short. Readers of scientific literature in any field should have a healthy skepticism of reports -- the scientific method demands that attitude. This particular report is an editorial disguised as science. There is no science here that I could see. Phil ___ 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.
How Wrong Can a Five-Sentence AP Story About Guns Be?
Eugene Volokh posted How Wrong Can a Five-Sentence AP Story About Guns
Be? (his blog on September 9, 2006 at 3:27am). The subject AP article
addressed a report by Ceasefire MD titled Every 48 Hours, An Analysis
Of Assault Rifles Traced To Crime In Maryland,
http://www.ceasefiremd.org/Reports/CeaseFireMDAssaultWeaponsStudy.pdf ,
which was announced by press release on Sept. 5, 2006. In his post
Eugene states: . . . if the study's data is accurate, the relevant
crime count for semiautomatic rifles and shotguns should be considerably
more than 789; likewise, since the study measures only guns that were
recovered and traced back to the crime, the actual number of guns used
in crime is likely to be considerably greater.
The usual flurry of comments followed Eugene's initial posting with the
last time-stamped 9.13.2006 6:22pm. The blog postings are available at:
http://volokh.com/posts/1157786857.shtml
A Google search for Every 48 Hours Assault Rifles reveals no other
postings on this topic in his blog, but does reveal a similar flurry of
comments around the country by news and blog sites that comment for a
short period on the CeaseFire MD report and then move on to other subjects.
By the time Volokh blog comments on this topic closed, no one had
sufficient time to completely analyze CeaseFires report
(http://www.ceasefiremd.org/Reports/CeaseFireMDAssaultWeaponsStudy.pdf)
but Jay made an effort on their press release (at
http://www.ceasefiremd.org/PressReleases/2006/090506.html).
So, while some blog respondents asked pertinent question (e.g. What does
traced to a crime mean? If I use a semiautomatic firearm in lawful
self defense at the scene of a crime, is it counted (traced) to the
crime as well? -- the answer to the second question is yes; the answer
to the first question is yes also, but neither is answered by CeaseFire
in its report), other respondents stated opinions which were factually
wrong {e.g. The study's relationship between used and traced is actually
logically quite defensible: They use tracebacks as a lower bound to
crime use (so frequently used in crime that one assault rifle is traced
back to a Maryland crime every 48 hours). One could hypothesize reasons
why this might not be so (for instance, if many of the tracebacks were
of guns stolen from innocent victims, rather than of crime guns), but on
balance I suspect that the assumption is right and is at least
defensible.}
To illustrate error with the assumption is . . . defensible comment,
consider the document posted by a Det. Bailey of the Montgomery County
[Maryland] Police Department, Firearms Investigations Unit (see:
http://www.gleag.com/Assault%20Weapons%20Ban%20Position%20Paper%20of%20Law%20Enforcement.pdf
)
Det. Bailey states that 300 crime guns were taken in Montgomery County
in 2006 and none of them were assault weapons by the criteria of Every
48 Hours. In far more violent Baltimore over 1500 guns were taken with
only 7 crime guns assault rifles.
Det. Baileys paper describes how the numbers of traced crime guns are
increased with police takings of guns having nothing to do with crime.
One example is of a person found dead at home in Ashton, Maryland. This
person has 47 firearms that would qualify as assault weapons by Every
48 Hours criteria. By police policy these firearms were traced but
none of these firearms were involved in any crime and the owner had no
criminal history.
Emergency Evaluation Petitions to evaluate mental competency results in
civil taking (and tracing) of firearms not connected to crime. In 2003,
according to Det. Bailey, Kensington, MD (a small community in
Montgomery County) saw the taking of 57 assault weapons via these
petitions. Domestic violence laws and other civil actions (ex parte and
final protective order) are another source of takings whereby guns are
labeled as crime guns to be traced but rarely connected to crimes.
So, the CeaseFire claim of tracebacks as a lower bound to crime use
fails because many traces are performed unrelated to crimes.
The real point of this message is to illustrate a problem stemming from
lack of follow-up in Blogs and other media. The actual CeaseFire MD
report is a bit of propaganda masquerading as a serious analysis and a
two week comment period isn't enough to expose the flaws of the report.
It is necessary to read the report and several months might be required
for comments to be developed. There are many more instances of false
claims not addressed in the initial comments. For example, page p9 of
the CeaseFire Report claims:
'In 1999, a Department of Justice (DOJ) commissioned study found that
gun trace requests for assault weapons declined 20 percent in the year
after the ban went into effect [Koper, Christopher and Roth, Jeffrey,
Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96, National Institute
of Justice Report, March 1999.]'
Yet, that DOJ report states on page 10 The public safety benefits of
the 1994 ban have not yet been
Re: CCW revoke rates
More Florida statistical data on their concealed weapon licensing is available linked from the page http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/index.html Phil There are a few more sources of data. Florida reports administrative actions (including firings as reason for revoking licenses) in their Newsletters. These newsletters are linked from http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/news/newsletters.html Michigan has a summerary report of its CCW program at http://www.michigan.gov/miparentresources/0,1607,7-107-35981_35982-115595--,00.html and details for 2005 revocations are given at http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/CCWAnnualReport_181416_7.pdf John Lott's web site contains an article on the effects of shall issue in Michigan published by Dawson Bell of the Detroit Free Press. This article looks at 6 years of the Michigan program and may be found at http://johnrlott.tripod.com/labels/numberpermits.html North Carolina publishes a cumulative report on revocations at http://sbi2.jus.state.nc.us/crp/public/other/conceal/Sept302004stats.pdf Utah publishes revocations data at http://www.bci.utah.gov/CFP/CFStat.html Wisconsin Policy Research Institute has published a report containing revocation data for several states at http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume19/Vol19no4.pdf (see pages 4,5). Many of the citations for this data are to news reports. Phil This is a multi-part message in MIME format. I'm looking for a large or comprehensive table of the CCW revocation rates by states with shall-issue laws. Anyone have a source? Yours in Liberty Guy Smith www.GunFacts.info http://www.gunfacts.info/ ___ 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: CCW revoke rates
There is a good analysis of the first years of the Texas shall issue operation with licensees being charged and convicted of crimes by Sturdevant at http://www.txchia.org/sturdevant.pdf and an update at http://www.txchia.org/sturdevant2000.htm For a while, Texas and Florida published much data concerning the operation of their licensing program operation, but some people began to misuse the data (distort it or report it in a misleading way -- e.g. http://www.vpc.org/press/9801tex.htm), so both states have changed the nature of their reporting. Florida's cumulative information over the life of their program is carried at: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html Texas convictions for crimes reported annually may be found at http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm but only for a few recent years. Phil This is a multi-part message in MIME format. I'm looking for a large or comprehensive table of the CCW revocation rates by states with shall-issue laws. Anyone have a source? Yours in Liberty Guy Smith www.GunFacts.info http://www.gunfacts.info/ -- The Art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike at him as hard as you can and as often as you can, and keep moving on. -- Ulysses S. Grant ___ 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: CCW revoke rates
There are a few more sources of data. Florida reports administrative actions (including firings as reason for revoking licenses) in their Newsletters. These newsletters are linked from http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/news/newsletters.html Michigan has a summerary report of its CCW program at http://www.michigan.gov/miparentresources/0,1607,7-107-35981_35982-115595--,00.html and details for 2005 revocations are given at http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/CCWAnnualReport_181416_7.pdf John Lott's web site contains an article on the effects of shall issue in Michigan published by Dawson Bell of the Detroit Free Press. This article looks at 6 years of the Michigan program and may be found at http://johnrlott.tripod.com/labels/numberpermits.html North Carolina publishes a cumulative report on revocations at http://sbi2.jus.state.nc.us/crp/public/other/conceal/Sept302004stats.pdf Utah publishes revocations data at http://www.bci.utah.gov/CFP/CFStat.html Wisconsin Policy Research Institute has published a report containing revocation data for several states at http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume19/Vol19no4.pdf (see pages 4,5). Many of the citations for this data are to news reports. Phil This is a multi-part message in MIME format. I'm looking for a large or comprehensive table of the CCW revocation rates by states with shall-issue laws. Anyone have a source? Yours in Liberty Guy Smith www.GunFacts.info http://www.gunfacts.info/ -- The Art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike at him as hard as you can and as often as you can, and keep moving on. -- Ulysses S. Grant ___ 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: Good discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of shotguns vs. handguns for self-defense
Obviously, there are circumstances for which a handgun, a rifle, a shotgun or even one of these firearms with high capacity magazines are preferred for self-defense. Also, obviously, if you are a hunter with a 30-30 and that is the only gun you have, that is the preferred gun for whatever circumstance impells self-defense. Most discussions I've seen assume a circumstance and argue for a preferred weapon. Most self-defense circumstances (other than at home) don't allow a choice to be made -- one chooses for a general circumstance such as having a concealed firearm out in public. In short-range combat, there is reason to prefer shotguns -- remember Griff's message of 27 Nov 2006 forwarded again below and review the article at the link (still good) of the Army report supplied. Phil - Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:00:35 -0500 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Army Lawyer on use of shotguns in combat To: Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu The October 1997 issue of the Army Lawyer has an interesting legal review of the use of shotguns by the US military. Especially germane to civilian firearm laws is the discussion of the effectiveness of shotguns versus assault firearms andsubmachine guns at close quarters. http://jagcnet.army.mil/JAGCNETINTERNET/HOMEPAGES/AC/ARMYLAWYER.NSF/c8 2df279f9445da185256e5b005244ee/6ae1de28fab6310685256e5b0054ec6b/ $FILE/Article%202.pdf Page 20: ...British examination of its malaya experience determined that, to a range of thirty yards (27.4 meters), the probability of hitting a man- sized target with a shotgun was superior to that of all other weapons. The probability of hitting the intended target with an assault rifle was one in eleven. It was one in eight with a submachine gun firing a five-round burst. Shotguns had a hit probability ratio twice as good as rifles... 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. 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, Eugene ___ 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. ___ 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: Is there a compendium of English and Colonial gun control laws out there?
Recently, the NRA supported HR2640, the so-call NICS improvement measure, and CBS News (NRA, Democrats Team Up To Pass Gun Bill, WASHINGTON, June 13, 2007) and the Wall Street Journal (Uncommon Harmony: Democrats and NRA Push for Gun Bill, David Rogers, June 13, 2007) gave them credit for doing so. The NRA web page http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=246issue=018 also shows this support. Previously, the NRA supported the Brady bill and was instrumental in supporting instant check which effectively saved the Brady background check. This instant check was opposed by the Brady organization, but without it, the background checking provisions using local police but not paying them to perform the checks was held unconstitutional by the USSC. Without the instant check provisions, there the Brady bill might have been rendered impotent. There are many other cases of pro-RKBA activists questioning whether the NRA is a supporter of the Second Amendment -- in one case, the NRA attempted to torpedo the DC v Heller law suit in early stages; in another Dr. Sarah Thompson(a well-known RKBA activist) wrote Not Rational Anymore http://www.shmoo.com/mail/cypherpunks/may00/msg00103.shtml to show her dislike of NRA activities. I think it isn't reasonable to try to use the NRA as exemplar of a pro- Second Amendment organization. I would class them as a pro-right of a some citizens to own and use some firearms group with the some citizens and some firearms defined to be as wide as possible as political conditions permit. Phil On Jan 8, 2008, at 6:40 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can anyone help me find a pro-Second Amendment source which states and defends some regulations of gun ownership? Thanks in advance. The answer to this question largely depends on how the answerer defines pro-Second Amendment. For example, the American Hunters and Shooters Association calls itself pro-Second Amendment, but you will look long and hard before you find any gun control law or regulation which they actually oppose. In terms of public perception, the NRA holds street cred as being pro-Second Amendment. You can look at their website, where they are on record as supporting (among other things): The national background check for firearms purchasers The ban on firearms ownership for convicted felons The federal Gun-Free School Zones law The recently passed NICS Improvement Act (dubbed the Veterans Disarmament Act by other pro-2A organizations). -- Escape the Rat Race for Peace, Quiet, and Miles of Desert Beauty Take a Sanity Break at The Bunkhouse at Liberty Haven Ranch http://libertyhavenranch.com ___ 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. -- The Art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike at him as hard as you can and as often as you can, and keep moving on. -- Ulysses S. Grant ___ 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: Chemerinsky on Heller
With regard to: As far as limitations on a right, I agree with him that Just as free speech has never been regarded as absolute, nor should an individual right to bear arms be seen as precluding all government regulation. But then he says, government has a legitimate interest in discouraging gun violence, and prohibiting ownership of guns is a reasonable way to attain the goal. Chemerinsky is an advocate of ideology -- it makes as much sense trying to debate his points as debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. With the issue of free speech never being regarded as absolute, isn't the issue really prior restraint of speech. That is, no government can gag you before you speak, but can punish you for lying to the FBI in an investigation or charge you with a crime if you should falsely cry fire in a theater, or jail you for revealing national secrets -- all these being acts to punish after the fact. In prohibiting ownership of guns, the government engages of prior restraint. The lawfulness of prior restraint contrary to the Constitution is the issue. As for prohibiting ownership of guns being a reasonable way to discourage gun violence, Chemerinsky rests his argument on the a view that reasonable is what legislators say it is. The moment you raise questions of effectiveness -- that is, should laws be required to be effective to be justified -- the reasonableness of gun control falls apart. And that isn't all -- when you raise the question of strict scrutiny in connection with any gun control, you have serious issues to settle before such laws appear reasonable. Chemerinsky, a law professor, doesn't talk about these issues because they don't fit his advocacy position. To Chemerinsky, truth doesn't matter -- winning matters. Phil The same column appeared in my local paper today: http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/columns/story/794945.html I think he misdescribes the Miller decision, is misleading in implying that there are no prohibitions regarding assault rifles (by the accepted military usage these are NFA weapons) and ownership of guns by criminals (as if there were no laws regarding ownership by felons.) He also is very sanguine about limitations on a right, Guns are simply a form of property. The government should have the same ability to regulate firearms as other property. As far as limitations on a right, I agree with him that Just as free speech has never been regarded as absolute, nor should an individual right to bear arms be seen as precluding all government regulation. But then he says, government has a legitimate interest in discouraging gun violence, and prohibiting ownership of guns is a reasonable way to attain the goal. The (lack of) logic floors me - if all regulations aren't precluded, then a total ban is an ok regulation. (Or do I misunderstand him?) Would he accept the same conclusion for 1st Amendment rights? --henry schaffer ___ 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. -- The Art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike at him as hard as you can and as often as you can, and keep moving on. -- Ulysses S. Grant ___ 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: [BULK] Disarm and shoot legalities
No, not a justification for shooting anyone -- perhaps shooting those close at hand who have previously attacked you with a deadly weapon which you have now in your possession, and who refuse your lawful orders consistent with trying to place them under citizens arrest (as you move away to increase distance, you did say you are under arrest, lie down at once, didn't you), and then if, you can no longer retreat to reach a safe distance and the perp is still threatening to a degree you can't practically determine, then deadly force may be in order in the conflict that is continuing and that has threatened your life. Of course, if you are a black belt in Kung Fu and are young and vigorous, you might be inclined to take chances. My point really is that there is a huge gap between legal discussion after the fact and the practical concerns for an innocent who has survived an initial attack which may be considered to be continuing until the attacker has been lawfully subdued. Phil I'll comment on one aspect of what Philip writes: Have you searched him to insure he has no deadly weapons at hand? Police experience with a person with a knife can close a distance of 21 ft. or less and strike a fatal blow before you can stop him with gun fire from most handguns. That is why they shoot persons with knives who get too close. Search for Tueller drill for more discussion of distance / reaction times against a threat. Even if he has no knife visible, can you be sure he doesn't have one he can access and attack you before you react or react with enough force to stop him. I hope this isn't a justification for shooting anyone who is apparently unarmed but is within 21 feet. ... ---henry schaffer ___ 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. -- The Art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike at him as hard as you can and as often as you can, and keep moving on. -- Ulysses S. Grant ___ 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: [BULK] Disarm and shoot legalities
Have you searched him to insure he has no deadly weapons at hand? Police experience with a person with a knife can close a distance of 21 ft. or less and strike a fatal blow before you can stop him with gun fire from most handguns. That is why they shoot persons with knives who get too close. Even if he has no knife visible, can you be sure he doesn't have one he can access and attack you before you react or react with enough force to stop him. Do you even know what your reaction time is to an attack -- you ought to try it and see, you'll be surprised. So, now I have to wonder whether the question is an legal one for dealing with the aftermath of some attack (and with time for due reflection) or whether it is a pragmatic one for a continuing conflict -- and the conflict is continuing unless the perp is totally submissive and responds to commands. If you've taken a gun away from an attacker, you should increase the distance between you for your safety (retreat also has a nice legal effect). I would guess that the issue of using deadly force at this moment would depend on whether you are not able to reach a safe distance. Phil I think the crux of the question is that 4) He is not fleeing. is not enough info. If you shoot him immediately upon gaining control of the gun, while the struggle continues (i.e., before you have him completely at your mercy), then you could argue that the original threat was not nullified just because you and he were struggling over the gun. If you break off the physical struggle, and you have the gun, and you think you have him covered, but then he lunges at you, a reasonable person could fear he will take the gun and kill you. I'm pretty sure what would happen if a cop has drawn down on me and I lunge at him. If he just stands there, glaring at you, refusing commands to lay down, etc., then I don't see how deadly force is justified. Raymond Kessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9/20/2007 10:20 AM Interesting hypo! Let's look at it from the 4th Amend. perspective. Some would argue that Tenn. v. Garner would apply, but I would argue that Tenn. v. Garner is a fleeing suspect case and that if the suspect is not fleeing anything else in Garner is dictum. If Garner doesn't apply then we have to fall back to the balancing and objective reasonableness approach of Graham v. Connor. Using this approach we have to ask what would a reasonably well trained officer have thought/done when faced with the same circumstances. Because the test is objective, the fact that the officer still considers the suspect dangerous (stipulation # 3) is irrelevant. There has to be something in the scenario that would cause an objectively reasonable officer to believe the suspect was still dangerous and deadly force is necessary. Given that the officer successfully took the weapon from the suspect, in the absence of additional facts, the use of deadly force would not appear to be objectively reasonable. The basic problem is that the threat of deadly force does not appear to be imminent. I would argue that in self-defense cases (as opposed to fleeing felon cases) the Fourth Amendment requires that the threat be imminent. In general, the law of civilian self-defense also requires that the force be imminent. The fact that the suspect was immediately dangerous a few moments ago but then now no longer has the gun (and the officer successfully took it) does not substitute for (or constitute) a reasonable perception of an imminent threat. The fact that the suspect does not retreat arguably would suggest to a reasonable officer that the suspect is submitting. In the absence of additional facts, it would be hard to argue that submitting would create a reasonable perception of an imminent threat. Obviously, more facts could change the result, (e.g., suspect continues to approach the officer after being ordered to stop, suspect refuses to put hands up and reaches in jacket, suspect is close enough to possibly overpower officer without gun and get gun in officer's possession) but I agree that shooting the suspect with the suspect or the officer's weapon would not be justified at this point. I would be interested in seeing how some of the rest of you would analyze this situation. _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Guy Smith Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 10:17 PM To: 'List Firearms Reg' Subject: [BULK] Disarm and shoot legalities Importance: Low After a recent martial arts class where we were learning how to take a gun away from an attacker, an interesting question came up and I was unsure of the answer. Stipulated: 1) A mugger had pointed a gun at you and you were in reasonable fear of your life. 2) You successfully take the gun from him. 3) You still
Re: Excellent 2A policy editorial
Excellent except for a common mistake: By granting legal and moral recognition to the right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution . . . . Who granted? Phil This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. Bearing Arms: If the average person today wonders about his relationship to his government, the Second Amendment provides ample guidance. It represents the ideal of American political and social life: the individual, self-governing, self-motivated, self-respecting, dignified, free citizen - who takes these virtues so seriously that he will maintain the personal power to back them up. http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070813/EDITORIAL/108130006/1013 Professor Joseph Olson, J.D., LL.M. o- 651-523-2142 Hamline University School of Law f- 651-523-2236 St. Paul, MN 55113-1235c- 612-865-7956 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- The Art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike at him as hard as you can and as often as you can, and keep moving on. -- Ulysses S. Grant ___ 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: On Parker
I can't answer your California law review question, but I'm struck with how representative Mr. Cornell's writings are of his side of the debate. Why would he quote an obscure law review observation without giving a complete reference? And, why do people on that side think they can get away with that practice. The proper response to such behavior is to contact him and ask him for the reference. It does seem that Cornell'a one statement Rather than apply the orthodox interpretation of Miller, the Parker court turned to a more recent case, U.S. v. Emerson shows everything about his view of the law. I may be mistaken, but he seems to be objecting that Parker didn't follow the view of the law held by Cornell and instead switched to a new view. Cornell's claim might be taken more seriously if he gave some supporting references for that point of view and wrote an analysis piece instead of one intended to inflame with assertions about flame throwers, bazookas, and Stinger missiles and a piece that didn't make nonsense claims that the militia of 1790 was well regulated, but is not well-regulated today. Phil Saul Cornell mentions, without citation, the California Law Review at the time of Miller(1939) in his post at History News Network: The Right to Bear Bazookas http://www.hnn.us/articles/36531.html If I wanted to check this comment in the CA L.R. to see what it says, does anyone know what the citation is and if it is online? --jcr ___ 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. -- The Art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike at him as hard as you can and as often as you can, and keep moving on. -- Ulysses S. Grant ___ 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 Well-Regulated Right to Bear Arms
A law lecture on the Washington Post editorial page to inform us all. Phil A Well-Regulated Right to Bear Arms By Erwin Chemerinsky Wednesday, March 14, 2007; Page A15 In striking down the District of Columbia's handgun ban last week, a federal appeals court raised the crucial constitutional question: What should be the degree of judicial deference to government regulation of firearms? The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit interpreted the Second Amendment as bestowing on individuals a right to have guns. But even if this reasoning is accepted, and it is very much disputed, the Court of Appeals still should have upheld the law as being a reasonable way of achieving the government's legitimate goal of decreasing gun violence. There is a major debate among scholars and judges involving two competing views of the Second Amendment. One approach, adopted by the Supreme Court in 1939 and by most federal courts of appeals, sees the Second Amendment as preventing Congress from regulating firearms in a manner that would keep states from adequately protecting themselves. This collective rights approach rejects the idea that the Second Amendment bestows on individuals a right to have guns. The alternative view, adopted by the D.C. Circuit on Friday, sees the Second Amendment as creating a right for individuals to have firearms. Each approach is consistent with the text of the Second Amendment, and each is supported by strong historical arguments about the original meaning of the provision. The Second Amendment says: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Those who take the collective rights approach focus on the initial language of the provision, while those who take the individual rights approach focus on the latter language. Each side of the debate marshals impressive historical arguments about what militia and keep and bear arms meant in the late 18th century. In the past few years, two other federal courts of appeals exhaustively reviewed this history, and one determined that the Framers intended the individual rights approach, while the other read history as supporting the collective rights approach. The assumption in this debate, and one that the D.C. Circuit followed Friday, is that gun control laws are unconstitutional if the individual rights approach is followed. This assumption, though, has no basis in constitutional law. No rights are absolute. Even the First Amendment, which is written in the seemingly absolute language that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech or religion, allows government regulation. Therefore, under the individual rights approach, there still is the question of what types of government regulations are appropriate. For 70 years the Supreme Court has distinguished among constitutional claims in deciding how closely to scrutinize laws and how much to defer to legislatures. In instances where there is reason to distrust the government, such as for laws discriminating on the basis of race, strict scrutiny is used and the government can prevail only if its action is necessary to achieve a compelling purpose. But where there is little reason to doubt the legislatures' choices, courts give great deference to the legislatures and uphold laws so long as they are reasonably related to a legitimate government purpose. For example, discrimination that is based on characteristics such as age, disability and sexual orientation need to meet only this more relaxed standard. Even rights enumerated in the Constitution, such as property rights, generally receive only this relaxed level of judicial review. For this reason, for 70 years, government regulation of the economy to protect employees and consumers has been upheld in the face of claims that it unduly restricts property rights. In other words, even if the D.C. Circuit is right in holding that the Second Amendment creates individual rights, that does not answer the question as to the level of scrutiny to be used in evaluating gun control laws. I believe that there is a strong argument that the regulation of guns should be treated the same as other regulation of property under modern constitutional law: The regulation should be allowed so long as it is rationally related to achieving a legitimate government purpose. Under this standard, there is no doubt that the D.C. gun law is constitutional. The city's government was pursuing the legitimate goal of decreasing gun violence, and its means were certainly reasonable. The Supreme Court will probably review the D.C. Circuit decision. Whether the court takes the individual or the collective rights approach, it should uphold the D.C. law and make clear that courts will defer to legislatures in their regulation of firearms. The writer is a professor of law and political science at
Re: Specific lawsuit?
Furrow also had been a licensed firearms dealer and had been convicted of a crime of violence which disqualified him to possess firearms. The police knew of this disqualification, yet did not search his property to obtain firearms that they could have known he possessed (such as the gun mentioned below). When asked why they had not searched Furrow's property, the police are said to have replied that they just hadn't got around to it. Phil I have been unable to find my notes on a liability lawsuit with the past few years against a gun manufacturer, in which the gun in question was originally sold to a police department, was traded in or resold, and eventually found its way to a criminal or accidental act by a civilian. Does this sound familiar enough to anyone that they could supply me with a name? Buford Furrow, shooter at a Los Angeles Jewish community center. He also shot and killed a postal employee. The gun he used on the postman was originally sold to the Cosmopolis, WA, police department IIRC. ___ 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. -- The Art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike at him as hard as you can and as often as you can, and keep moving on. -- Ulysses S. Grant ___ 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: Condi Rice is anti-militia (in Lebanon)
In any case the militia, like the states, are anterior to and independent of the Constitution and the states. The clauses you quote above do not establish the militia (just as the Bill of Rights does not establish any rights). They merely specify the relationship the congress will have with the militia. Nobody in this multi-log claimed the militia was established in the Constitution. The clauses I quoted were to support a point I was making -- I think they did. I did claim that the Constitution contains a pretty clear statement about the powers granted the various governments with regard to the militia (delegated powers). There are at least two uses for the word militia -- one being that part of the people of able body and not excused which are expected to serve as a reserve military resource for the US and are expected to respond to summons to protect the people when needed and the other being for some part of that part which actually have been called to service and are subject to the authority of the government and subject to that government's discipline. Gee, fellows, we'd really like to go out and oppose the British troops marching on Lexington and Concord with orders to confiscate our cannon, but we have to wait for the Constitution to be written so Congress can call us out... Here you see an act which the British authorities and the colonials would agree was an act of rebellion. Such acts are not lawful and are justified only by the results of combat. So, we've left the discussion of lawful actions of militia in relationship to government. I guess I would make what I think might be Rice's point here. These actions will not likely be tolerated by governments -- nor should they be. I think the solution here is to recognize several militias: the federal militia, defined by the federal constitution; the state militias, defined by the state constitutions, and a general militia constituting the people at large and severally. A person may be a member of one, several or none. I would consider the militias operating at Lexington and Concord to be in the latter category. I suspect that all the militia groups really don't have any organized armed drills unless the group is run by the state for legal reasons. It's hard to tell what's militia drill and what isn't. If one of the purposes of the militia is to provide first responder defense, then self defense training is also militia training. At this point we aren't talking legal issues any more, but political and philosophical ones. Phil Lee -- 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 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: Condi Rice is anti-militia (in Lebanon)
Our Constitution provides for the control of the militia (in the historical context the able body citizens not excused service and not in the government) while in Federal service or while in the service of a state. Bands of citizens acting in concert while armed and not acting as our laws provide for the militia would not tolerate by any chief executive of any government. Such bands would be armed bands acting violently and outside of national control -- the classic definition of bandits or rebels (in the case of Lebanon we have both kinds of actions). The militia is essentially a passive organization which should operate only when called by proper authority or in a dire emergency but still under the authority extablished by a government. So, a posse formed to chase bandits should be sworn to their duty by competent authority such as a sheriff. A groups of citizens responding to an emergency such as the raid on town banks, like the Great Northfield (Minnesota) 1876 raid by the James-Younger gangs, might operate for a while in defense of the town without being formally sworn and might even coordinate as a militia unit, but once the emergency is past, they would have to operate under competent authority to be legal is my guess. If you actually talked to Ms. Rice, I bet that is what she meant. Lebanon is not close to Switzerland or the US. BTW -- I think the Swiss militia might be closer to the National Guard than our unorganized militia. Phil Lee While the diplomatic language may have been adopted without due consideration of the historic constitutional implications and how it could be misunderstood in that context, we need to point out this out to them. We can't depend on them to figure it out for themselves if we don't provide feedback. The Bush Administration and Dr. Rice have made similar comments critical of the Minuteman Project, which is a domestic issue. Traditionally, domestic law enforcement was militia. The emergence of full-time professional law enforcement agents and the displacement of militia for that purpose is not a development the Founders would have viewed favorably. -- Jon Our efforts depend on donations from people like you. Directions for donors are at http://www.constitution.org/whatucando.htm Constitution Society 7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757 512/374-9585 www.constitution.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Get your free digital certificate from http://www.thawte.com ___ 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. -- The Art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike at him as hard as you can and as often as you can, and keep moving on. -- Ulysses S. Grant ___ 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: Condi Rice is anti-militia (in Lebanon)
The power to call forth the militia, organizing and disciplining them and governing those parts called to federal service is allocated to Congress according to the US Constitution (see Section. 8. Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power ... Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; ) I presume the states have similar powers to call forth the militia for state service. I doubt the militia is empowered to call itself into service. Remember, we are speaking of two kinds of militia. One militia is the citizens who may do things such as make citizen arrests when they observe crimes. They are the unorganized militia -- the people. The other meaning of militia is used in connection with military service to state or federal governments. In this case people have been called to service and are serving the organized militia. They are under military discipline while they are in that service. USSC in PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) made pretty clear that no band of people may organize and arm itself and call itself a militia even for such innocent efforts as marching in a parade. And, even the volunteer militia recognized by a state may regulate what that militia may do (i.e., without the license of the governor thereof). Of course citizens have power to act together as a group to defend themselves, but they could be in trouble if they act for a prolonged period (past some emergency) without the license of the governor of the state or in support of some government official designated in charge of their discipline. As for what the Minutemen are doing on the border, they appear to be acting as witnesses to crimes and to notify authorities when they do suspect crimes and not at all acting to protect against crimes in some organized way such as making arrests themselves. They can call themselves what ever they want while doing that, the difference in what they are doing and the gangs in Lebanon are fairly clear. And so are the differences between what they did and what the citizens did in Northfield too. I suspect that all the militia groups really don't have any organized armed drills unless the group is run by the state for legal reasons. Phil Philip F. Lee wrote: The militia is essentially a passive organization which should operate only when called by proper authority or in a dire emergency but still under the authority extablished by a government. The position stated above is not consistent with the original concept of militia as provided for in the Constitution. Militia is defense activity, and only secondarily those engaged in it. Militia may be called up by any person aware of a threat to which militia needs to respond. The authority is provided by the threat. It was envisioned that local sheriffs and constables would also be commanders of militia in their jurisdictions, but the concept includes situations in which officials are derelict or unlawful themselves. The traditional militia was to provide a check on abusive officials, and in the early Republic was the enforcement arm of the law, even when commanders were elected by the men of their units, which was the common practice, especially when officials were derelict or adverse to the will of the people. The Minuteman Project provides an excellent example of militia performing according to the intent of the Founders. Federal, state, and local government has been derelict in defending the border and enforcing the law, and civilians are responding to the threat by organizing, training, and equipping themselves, and electing their own commanders. They are willing to follow officials if those officials are doing their duties, but are not required to wait for that unlikely event. -- Jon Our efforts depend on donations from people like you. Directions for donors are at http://www.constitution.org/whatucando.htm Constitution Society 7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757 512/374-9585 www.constitution.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Get your free digital certificate from http://www.thawte.com -- The Art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike at him as hard as you can and as often as you can, and keep moving on. -- Ulysses S. Grant ___ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change
Re: Fwd: DC lawsuit decision
At the end, the reasoning appears as follows: If a criminal steals my Glock 22 (a machine gun under DC law) or buys his own, goes to DC, shoots a DC resident, then that resident (or his family) have a cause of action against Glock if they can tie Glock to the weapon used. So, if the criminal drops the Glock at the crime scene, DC law will allow a cause of action against Glock. If they can't tie the gun to Glock and there are other manufacturers that could have supplied the gun, there is no cause of action against Glock. It doesn't matter that the Glock 22 is legal for sale in every other state in the union. Because DC has decided these firearms [semi-automatic firearms with large capacity ammo magazines] are especially dangerous, this court's opinion is that the cause of action depends only on whether a shooting can be tied specifically to one manufacturer. Phil Reversed in part to allow further discovery on one count. http://www.dcappeals.gov/dccourts/appeals/pdf/03-CV-24+.PDF ** Professor Joseph Olson; J.D., LL.M. Hamline University School of Law St. Paul, Minnesota 55104-1284 tel.(651) 523-2142 fax. (651) 523-2236 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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. -- The Art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike at him as hard as you can and as often as you can, and keep moving on. -- Ulysses S. Grant ___ 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: Peas in a pod?
Well -- the statements are close, but there are some essential differences of nuance. Schumer says Just as you can't falsely shout fire in a crowded movie theater, you can put restrictions on who can own guns and how, when, and where they may be possessed. Notice the shift in person with you referring to two different persons/groups. The effect of that shift is to make uncertain what the second you means -- Congress, State legislatures, individual business owners, Notice that he says you can't falsely shout fire ... when, I'm sure, he is not talking about prior restraint such as gagging felons who go to the movies to prevent them from doing such a thing -- he is talking about penalizing people who falsely shout fire after the event. In the case of gun ownership, he is talking prior restraint. Schumer is also talking about more than restrictions on ownership, but including when, where and how firearms may be possessed. Ashcroft suffers no shift in person in his statement the individual rights view of the Second Amendment does not prohibit Congress from enacting laws restricting firearms ownership for compelling state interests ... just as the First Amendment does not prohibit [government from legislating against] shouting 'fire' in a crowded movie theater. Nor does Ashcroft mention laws restricting when, where and how firearms may be possessed. Now, these differences may seem small (certainly within the differences that could be attributed to colloquial and sloppy use in common speaking), but it is possible there are significant differences. Then, it is also possible that one [or both] of these two is lying about what he really means and that we should look more at their actions [speak louder than words]. Phil 1. The broad principle that there is an individual right to bear arms is shared by many Americans, including myself. I'm of the view that you can't take a broad approach to other rights, such as First Amendment rights, and then interpret the Second Amendment so narrowly that it could fit in a thimble. But I'm also of the view that there are limits on those rights. Just as you can't falsely shout fire in a crowded movie theater, you can put restrictions on who can own guns and how, when, and where they may be possessed. ___ Sen. Charles Schumer 2. While some have argued that the Second Amendment guarantees only a 'collective' right of the States to maintain militias, I believe the Amendment's plain meaning and original intent prove otherwise. Like the First and Fourth Amendments, the Second Amendment protects the rights of 'the people,' which the Supreme Court has noted is a term of art that should be interpreted consistently throughout the Bill of Rights. ... Of course, the individual rights view of the Second Amendment does not prohibit Congress from enacting laws restricting firearms ownership for compelling state interests ... just as the First Amendment does not prohibit [government from legislating against] shouting 'fire' in a crowded movie theater. ___ Attorney General John Ashcroft Second Amendment pragamatists can be switch-hitters. ** Professor Joseph Olson; J.D., LL.M. Hamline University School of Law St. Paul, Minnesota 55104-1284 tel.(651) 523-2142 fax. (651) 523-2236 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- The Art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike at him as hard as you can and as often as you can, and keep moving on. -- Ulysses S. Grant ___ 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.
Re: Firearm ownership US - past 1994
Some more recent data may be found in Appendix A of Commerce in Firearms in the United States, February 2000 (there through 1998/99). That report is still available on the ATF web site at: http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/020400report.pdf You'd think a more recent report would have been issued, but I can't find it and can't even find links to this report on the ATF web site (so I'm glad I saved the link previously). Phil This is a multi-part message in MIME format. I'm updating some data files and discovered that I do not have a good set of data for the estimated number of firearms, handguns, long guns in the U.S. past 1994. Does any have a good source for this? - Guy Smith Author, Gun Facts www.GunFacts.info [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- The Art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike at him as hard as you can and as often as you can, and keep moving on. -- Ulysses S. Grant ___ 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.
Re: statute?
Just a layperson's comments. I'd be surprised if the Secret Service had not been sufficiently empowered to protect the President and could not legally disarm anyone in the vicinity of the President. I would not regard such power as infringing freedom sufficiently to warrent an effort to change the situation. Where I think I see problems is Secret Service assuming power to remove protestors without legal authority. For example, if there is a threat to the President's safety from a possible bomb being thrown at his car as it passes, then secret service action to move people away from his motorcade route might be justified. All the people should be moved in that case. If the Secret Service (or local authorities) move only people carrying anti-president signs while leaving those with pro-president signs, it appears to me they would be abusing civil rights and infringing liberty. Absent a legal finding that a person is a criminal, the authorities should have no warrent to treat that person in a distinguished way even if his lawful conduct might offend sensibilities of those in power. Obviously, the key is that a protestor's conduct should be lawful (and the Secret Service should not have authority to make that conduct unlawful just because someone is protesting). I would love to see someone with sufficient resources take on what I understand to be abuses in this area. Phil On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 23:50:40 -0500, Robert Woolley wrote: This doesn't specify any conduct which one is required to conform to or refrain from in order to be in the designated areas. It seems, rather, to allow complete exclusion of unauthorized persons. Further, I doubt that, e.g., a campaign speech site is designated as a residence or office. It appears to me that this is for, e.g., hotels that the president is staying at, or major portions thereof. I think you're right, and one of the links says that the Senate Report (many years old) supports your comments; HOWEVER, recent media coverage of the pre-jail at the DNC in Boston suggests that understanding is no longer operable. Other recent media coverage of arrests has said, summarized and restated, that the Secret Service gave oral notice to protestors that permission to be within the restricted area had been withdrawn, the restricted area being defined by the Secret Service as pretty much wherever the protestors were. Along with you, I'd appreciate an update from anyone who has managed to stay current with this part of the law. The other thought I have is that the statute and the regulations are careful to say that state and local law are not preempted. So if the protestors argue with the Secret Service, they are arrested for disturbing the peace. The extension to your original question about licensed firearms would be that if the agent says no, then the answer is no. I recall a news article several years ago about a licensed/authorized carrier (he might have been some kind of judicial officer) who was briefly detained when he was somewhere back in the crowd at a presidential appearance. Poor judgment on his part, perhaps, but in the absence of formally designated restricted areas and/or metal detectors hardly a crime. Or so I would think. ___ 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. -- The Art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike at him as hard as you can and as often as you can, and keep moving on. -- Ulysses S. Grant ___ 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.
RE: UK Guardian: Row over figures as crime drops 5%
Well, Dr(?) Kleiman's following paragraph needs to be reconsidered by him: I must say I find the whole tone of this thread rather shocking on a scholarly list. Some people are married to the idea that gun controls cause crime. The UK instituted gun controls, and crime fell, according to the best evidence we have. Instead of questioning their theories, the proponents of more guns less crime are questioning the data, even if it means relying on newspaper accounts of what interested and ignorant politicians have to say. I doubt this argument would be happening here if the victimization survey showed crime up, rather than down. Dr. Kleiman needs to check his facts. First, gun crime has risen in Britain since the ban of handguns (see Crime in England and Wales 2003/04, page 80, Figure 5.6). While it is true that Murder has fallen in the most recent year, a major part of the apparent decline came from 172 murders (by serial killer Dr. Shipman) which were booked in 2002/03 and did not recur in 2003/04. Removing those murders from consideration, there was still a decline year to year, but the figure 1.1 from Crime in England and Wales 2002/2003 shows no decrease in murder since about 1996 (about the date of the ban) and there may have been a significant increase. We shall have wait a few years to see whether the recent reporting decline is a random fluctuation or a reversal of what appears to be an upward trend. As to a survey being the gold standard, I would advise reserving opinion unless you know that methodology employed and you know it is not subject to political pressures. At least in the U.S. we know both surveys and crime reporting by the police are subject to those pressures. While you can't survey murder victims, and the stigma of rape is likely to distort any survey of those victims, and while drug crimes are not violent, violent crimes against victims under age 16 and businesses (e.g., bank robbery) are also excluded from the survey. At least in the U.S., those two components of violent crimes are significant. So, imagine all robbers shift from holding up little old ladies on the street to robbing banks. Robbery would vanish according to the survey but Bank Managers might disagree. Britain's crime is not really a good test outcome for debunking more guns, less crime theories especially relating to handguns and their ban. A point some of us try to make is that banning handguns has bought Britain no benefit we can see. Since the ban on legal ownership of handguns in 1996, firearm crime is up, murder is up, serious violence is up (even according to surveys, although there may have been a reversal of the trend in the past year on robbery). So, where is the value in the ban? And if the handgun ban is so successful, why are the Brits adopting a policy of manditory sentences for gun crimes? Phil Victimization surveys were introduced because trends in crimes reported to the police are unreliable measures of trends in crime. Many factors, including the perceived competence of the police, can influence the proportion of victims who choose to make official reports. Victimization data are regarded as the gold standard, counting many crimes the official data miss. I'm not familiar with crime survey procedures in the UK, but victimization surveys in the US never include homicide, for two reasons. First, homicide, unlike other crimes, is well reflected in official data, since a homicide usually leaves a body and produces an inquest or medical- examiner report. Second, it turns out that very few survey respondents have been victims of homicide. (Think about it.) So what's stunning is that the shadow HS was willing to parade his ignorance in this fashion, and that reporters and others were taken in by it. But of course if he considers drug-taking to be among the categories of violent crime, he's pretty hopeless to start with. Rape is a different matter; since rape is badly under-reported, and since its under-reporting rate varies significantly with the police practices and with changes in social attitudes, it is one of the crime categories where victimization data are most valuable. I don't know whether the UK victimization survey actually excludes rape or not, but if it does that would be a surprising omission. One possible explanation: perhaps it turns out that, in the UK, respondents find even being asked about rape so offensive that asking drives down the response rate. I must say I find the whole tone of this thread rather shocking on a scholarly list. Some people are married to the idea that gun controls cause crime. The UK instituted gun controls, and crime fell, according to the best evidence we have. Instead of questioning their theories, the proponents of more guns less crime are questioning the data, even if it means relying on newspaper
Re: Safe in GB
I'd suggest that the picture of self-defense in Britain is not fairly represented without discussing the law concerning tools that can be used for self-defense. Peaceable citizens cannot carry lock-back knives or firearms for the purposes of self-defense. In fact, a lock back knife that I routinely carry in the U.S. (a Beretta with a 3 blade) is regarded in Britain as an offensive weapon. One attacker responds with a knife in his premises, but if he were to be attacked on the street and responded with the same knife that he carried on the street, what would have been the legal outcome? Shannon used scissors to defeat an attack. Having receive a threat, if Shannon had armed himself with a serious knife instead of scissors, he might have been judged as having gone looking for trouble and his self- defense claim dismissed by the jury. The questioning about why he had the scissors is reprentative of trying to determine the motive for his being armed (e.g., did he place himself in a position where he could kill and claim self-defense). In most places in the U.S., arming yourself in response to threats is considered a prudent action. So long as you don't provoke and attack, your claims of self-defense should be upheld. I guess, given the facts in Shannon, some of us wonder why a trial would have been necessary. There were witnesses that Shannon was attacked and had been threatened previously by the attacker. The attacker had a record of violent action. I'd guess, that had Shannon not been carrying the scissors, but had instead found them during his struggle, there would have been no prosecution. The fact that a prosecution was made in this case is an illustration of the hostility in Britain to self-defense. Phil Ron Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From what I've read about modern Britain, I don't think I would feel very safe there. I feel safe in Los Angelse and New York. I feel safe in the wilds of Namibia. But, I don't think I would feel safe in London. I am unclear as to what I could do if set upon by some street tough. I mean...what if I hit him in the head with my camera while he is trying to rob me...do I go to jail? Perhaps it's because the folks spinning the tale that self-defence is outlawed there never ever tell you about cases like this one: Faced with a robber's empty shotgun, a `bloody great big hero'. Cahal Milmo. 22 June 2000 The Independent - London Richard Watkins is not a typical village postmaster, as a biker of 6ft 4in with long grey hair, a bushy beard and a talent for electronic wizardry. But yesterday, in Wolverley - a picture postcard village near Kidderminster - he was a celebrated postmaster and, in the words of one resident, a bloody great big hero. The previous morning, Mr Watkins, a 50-year-old bachelor described as a gentle giant, found himself fighting off with a knife an armed robber. Scott Griffiths, the jobless plasterer who had burst into the post office wearing a balaclava and waving a sawn-off shotgun, died later from his stab wounds. Griffiths, 28, who had convictions for burglary, assault and theft, received a fatal stab wound to the chest when Mr Watkins grabbed the four-inch lock-knife he uses to open bundles of newspapers, and lunged at his attacker. Griffiths was found dead within an hour, in the back of a blue Ford Sierra used as a getaway car. The two men who were allegedly with him were nowhere to be seen. West Mercia police announced soon afterwards they were treating the sub-postmaster as a victim of a terrifying and life-threatening crime. His customers, friends and neighbours agreed yesterday that he was the victim. Ms Watkins said she would be very surprised if charges were brought against the postmaster, adding: He was really acting in self-defence. He didn't know initially that the gun wasn't loaded. -- Tim ___ 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 -- The Art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike at him as hard as you can and as often as you can, and keep moving on. -- Ulysses S. Grant ___ 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: Mauser calls a decrease a horrifying increase
Exactly so. It seems there isn't an overwhelming flood of safety seeking migrants wanting to move to Canada from the U.S. Perhaps because they realize they can have their guns and safety too by living in small towns in ME, NH, VT, ND, MN, MI or a host of other places (and the delights of Canadian winters for the places mentioned if that is their wish). But that isn't the issue at all for Mr. Lambert. He is an advocate of a point of view using the trappings of science. But science is about objective truth (as objective as possible given the nature of observers). To argue against a statement you know to be true might be attractive for a lawyer in Court, but is dishonest in science. Scientific ethics would oblige the correction to be given. Even suppressing data that supports a scientific observation under dispute would be dishonest. Nor is it honest for a scientist to assert that his distortions are justified by distortions given by others. Telling the truth as you understand it is the first obligation for a scientist. Mr. Lambert isn't a scientist, he is an advocate of a point of view that guns are bad and he is making every effort to discredit those providing the opposite point of view. Unfortunately for Mr. Lambert, the position he takes isn't supported by science. Phil Isn't the issue, not whether we should prefer to live in Canada, but whether gun control reduces violence. eh? - Original Message - From: Tim Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Guy Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 10:28 PM Subject: Re: Mauser calls a decrease a horrifying increase I think a sane person would prefer lower violent crime rates (Canada) to higher violent crime rates (US), even the rates are falling faster in the US. -- Tim ___ 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 ___ 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 -- The Art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike at him as hard as you can and as often as you can, and keep moving on. -- Ulysses S. Grant ___ 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: Mauser calls a decrease a horrifying increase
The Canadian violence rate would still be below most areas of the US (not below those areas where gun ownership is freest (i.e., Vermont, ND, SD), but not the Canadian suicide rate. However, what Mr. Lambert tends to ignore is that there is no evidence for real positive effect from the gun laws imposed in Canada, Australia and Britain (unless you count the switch in Australia from guns to hanging as the preferred means of suicide in the youth category). We can argue 'till the cows come home about whether the American model of freedom degrades public safety compared to Canada, Britain, and Australia (for people not in the illegal drug trade, it appears the US wins -- for those in the drug trade, the US loses). There are enough differences in counting rules that comparisons between countries are difficult. The difference in approach to illegal drugs provides a big difference. And there are some shifts in perspective by Mr. Lambert in his reactions to Lott/Mauser that are suspect. For example, Mr. Lambert attacks Lott/Mauser's comment about increasing violence in Canadian cities by shifting to overall Canadian violence (much non-city violence included) which didn't increase. Mr. Lambert also ignores the big increase in Canadian violence from the 1950's and the increasingly restictive gun laws introduced during that period. He criticizes Mauser for claiming an increase in violence over the past decade by pointing to a graph which he says (correctly) shows no decrease -- but if you look at the full extent of the graph (20 years), there are great increases during a period where Canada passed a number of gun laws. Any sane man would look at the data and ask where is the evidence that all the money spent for these gun laws has had a positive impact on violence? Moreover, Mr. Lambert continues to obscure the increases in gun violence in Britain and the increases in serious violence by using overall violence figures that include less serious crimes (a criticism he delivers against Mauser too). And he continues to drag out the change in counting rules and ignore the increases that have happened since the counting rules have changed. Violence wasn't supposed to increase that way. The restrictions were supposed to decrease violence, but it appears that year-to-year the violence grows (at least in England and Wales). Phil snip More to the point, during the 1990's, when firearm sales in the US were rolling along nicely and states were passing shall issue laws with glee, we see a growing per capita gap between US and Canadian violent crime. If I were standing on the border, I would see the US rate steadily dropping after 1991, and the Canadian rate peaking and staying roughly level. This would make any sane person want to head south. Guy Smith Silicon Strategies Marketing 630 Taylor Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 510-521-4477 (T) 510-217-9693 (F) [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.SiliconStrat.com ___ 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 ___ 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: Making an arrest (was: Wounding Shots)
Professional police forces date from the early 19th Century (1829 in London, England and 1844 in New York City, US -- see: http://www.met.police.uk/history/definition.htm http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/policing.cfm ) It should be no surprise that citizens would have police powers since they were the law enforcement officers at the founding of our republic. Sheriffs would be elected from the body of the citizens and would call upon the help of citizens when needed for police actions. But Sheriffs were frequently distant from the need for policing. While I always liked the Western High Noon for its drama and pacing, the portrail of a cowardly town who would refuse to aid the sheriff to keep the peace did not ring true of the American spirit. Instead, the Northfield Raid by the James-Younger Gang in 1876 showed how ordinary American's would react to bandits (and they didn't have an hour to get organized as in High Noon). These private citizens shot the gang to pieces in the town and when it fled, the townspeople pursued the gang for weeks(ref. http://www.mnhs.org/library/tips/history_topics/16northfield.html). Phil This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. There is another scenario that has been neglected: making an arrest. Most of he situations presented involve offenses by the perp that authorize the defender to make a custodial arrest, and to use a firearm to effect that arrest. Of course, the defender should announce that it is an arrest, and perhaps cite the offense for which the arrest is being made, but a civilian has, in every state of which I am aware, most of the same arrest authority that a law enforcement officer does, at least for offenses committed in his presence. The civilian should, in general, follow the policies prevailing locally for law enforcement officers in the use of a firearm in such situations. Moreover, civilians have a duty to make an arrest of a felony or serious misdemeanor (as provided by law), not just to avoid personal injury, if they can do so without undue risk. Civilians have the same duty officers do, just not the duty to do it on a regular duty schedule, as a job. -- Jon ___ 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
