Please, Mr. Representative! Stay Back at Least 1,000 Feet!

Representative Peter King (R-NY) is concerned about his personal safety, given the recent shooting in Tucson that left Rep. Gabrielle Giffords so grievously injured and six lesser lights, at least in Rep. King's eyes, dead. He suggestions a solution: that "high profile government officials," be encircled 24/7 by a protective bubble within which no citizen could lawfully possess a firearm.

I can appreciate Rep. King's concern for his personal safety and that of his colleagues. At some level and at some times the same concerns attach to even the most humble of us.

However, there is a simpler way for Rep. King to reap whatever benefit he sees from such a 1,000 foot restriction, one that inconveniences far fewer people and steps on no constitutional toes at all.

I suggest that Mr. King revise the focal point of his bill. Rather than limiting gun owners, on whom large segments of society depend for safety whether they know it or not, Mr. King should restrict the activities of the protectees, high profile government officials such as himself. The inconvenience would affect a much smaller group, just a few hundred or thousand or million, whatever he wants to define as "high profile." To protect himself, or at least his feelings of security, Mr. King and the other members of this elite club would be required by his law to stay away from any citizens either carrying, or who might reasonably be thought to possibly be carrying, firearms.

That way, everyone's happy. Mr. King has his bubble and society has its citizen protectors.

Obama to Register Rifles

For the first time ever, the Obama administration is taking steps to register rifles sold through firearms dealers begininning January 5, 2011.

It seems that otherwise law-abiding rifles used for recreation—plinking, hunting and shooting competitions— and self-defense while north of the Mexican border, turn into stone cold cartel killers once they cross south of the Rio Grande. There's no data on whether their criminal behavior continues after they return to U. S. or if they revert to their previous good citizenship.

Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has requested emergency approval from the White House Office of Budget Management to require 8,500 federally-regulated firearms retailers in four states to report two or more sales to the same purchaser within 5 days of rifles that fire a round larger than .22 long rifle.

According to Scripps News, the goal isn't to stop sales but to

just allow authorities to immediately seek out the buyer and try to determine his motives.

OK, but while they're at it, how about an investigation of the editorials at Scripps, just to determine their motives?

The new Obama registration would apply to semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines larger than five rounds. It would include a majority of the rifles manufactured in the last 75 years.

With typically Obama graciousness, however, BATFE plans to allow public comments for 60 days, though the rule would be enforced while comments are received.

Let's see, we can comment… but only after the fact.

UPDATE: Of course, comments will only happen if voters are informed. BATFE has no mention of this emergency request on its website. Like so many of the administration's news items, the "official notice" was dumped into the legacy media on a Friday night by the Government Printing Office.

Chris Cox, head of NRA-ILA, calls the move illegal, a circumvention of Congress and promises a fight on Capitol Hill.

Stumping the FBI?

There was a time, I guess, when the FBI really was a premier investigatory agency. Back when Efrem Zimbalist, Jr. was the agent of the week, every week, on Sunday night. While those days may be long gone, killed by the deadening weight of bureaucracy piled onto political correctness, it remains unfair to blame the Bureau for the superficial and misleading reporting that accompanied the release of the annual crime figures.

The FBI puts out the numbers, the newspinners spin.

The release this week of the FBI's Crime in the United States 2009 proves the point Evan Perez reported in The Wall Street Journal  (paper edition only)

The number of violent crimes reported in 2009 declined for the third-consecutive (sic) year, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported, with law-enforcement officials crediting better policing despite cutbacks caused by the weak economy.

Let's leave aside for the moment the police industry's self serving claims

Policing experts attribute lower (crime) rates to a number of factors, from imporved policing tactics to demographic trends.

Even less credible, from the same article

Attorney General Eric Holder said the more than $4 billion the Obama administration steered toward law enforcement in the 2009 economic-stimulus legislation 'helped maintain public safety and encourage new criminal-justice innovations.

I think the Obama administration does deserve some of the credit. After all, it was immeidately after Obama's election that gun sales went through the roof and ammunition sold so rapidly that stores couldn't keep a stock.

In 2009, politically-anxious Americans bought 14 million new guns and 14 billion rounds of ammunition, great motivation for a break from crime.

Proving for the umpteenth time, More guns, less crime.


It's undoubtedly the single best accomplishment of the Obama group. I wonder if they'll claim credit?

Jurors Sentenced to Life Without Parole

Do you suppose President Obama gave a moment's thought to the future jury that will sit for the trial of the terrorist war criminals in New York City? If the jurists eventually vote to convict, won't they likely be targets of real and wannabe jihadists for the rest of their lives?

They will spend every waking moment of every waking day wondering whether the car will start with a flash, whether the loud bang was a backfire or a rifle shot, whether the sudden pain while strolling down Fifth Avenue is a knife in the side.

Their spouses, children, parents, siblings, workplaces, churches and bowling alleys will be at risk for a generation.

They will be pariahs among their friends, worse than Typhoid Mary. Like her, they may be imprisoned for life for their own protection on an island in NYC's harbor.

A possible silver lining: Mayor Bloomberg is about to get a ton of requests for concealed weapons permits from ordinary everyday citizens of New York, members of the jury pool. It'll be interesting to see how he responds.


These guys, reputed to be so very smart, really aren't impressive at all.

A Lesson Unlearned: From Luby's Cafeteria to Fort Hood

Eighteen years and two weeks ago, tragedy struck Killeen, Texas as a single vengeful killer armed with two pistols murdered 23 people and wounded 20 more customers eating lunch in Luby's Cafeteria. Last week, a different single vengeful killer armed with two pistols murdered one civilian and 12 soldiers and wounded 30 more at neighboring Ft. Hood, less than eight miles up U. S. Highway 190 from the old Luby's site.

While the two killers had nothing in common other than hatred for America, the victims shared sad similarities: victims of terrorists and victims of the law. The loss of life, the tragic losses suffered by their families, the life changing wounds of those whose lives were made worse, much worse, by laws that forced them into harm's way.

Among the dead at Luby's that day were Al and Ursula Gratia. Their daughter, Dr. Suzanna Hupp, was with them when the restaurant was attacked while they were eating. But for a Texas law that required that she leave her personal pistol outside in her car, that forbade her from carrying it into the restaurant, Dr. Hupp would have had the ability to defend her parents, herself and the others from the erratic but deadly attack by George Hennard in the second-worst shooting rampage in American history.

Dr. Hupp, reacting instinctively to the first shots, reached into her purse for her pistol.

It was not there.

Complying with Texas law of the time, she had locked her pistol in her truck parked outside. She watched in shock as her father attempted to subdue the shooter and was shot dead. She watched as Hennard repeatedly reloaded his pistols and resumed shooting. She watched as her mother, comforting her dying father, was killed.

Dr. Hupp escaped death that day and vowed to make a difference, promising herself to never again be a victim of senseless slaughter. A year later, she led the effort to change Texas law so that today more than 200,000 law-abiding Texans can protect themselves and others by lawfully carrying concealed pistols. There have been no mass shootings in Texas since… until last week.

On Thursday, Dr. Nidal Malik Hasan walked into a processing center in the middle of Ft. Hood, and opened fire against its 300 occupants with one of his two pistols, stopping to reload at least five times. Forty-two of his targets were soldiers, each of them trained with firearms. Of his 300 potential victims, dozens were experts with rifle or pistol, but in accordance with current law none of the 300 were allowed access to weapons on base, not the military weapons with which they'd soon be deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan nor their personal guns. Though knowledgeable, skilled and responsible, they were made defenseless by the law. While their leaders trust these men and women to wander the world with weapons that can level a building, they don't trust them with a handgun at home.

Interestingly, the first responder at Fort Hood was a woman armed with a pistol. Civilian police officer Kimberly Munley, who just last month finished an 80-hour course certifying her as a firearm instructor for her agency, was directing traffic when the call to respond came, "shots fired." She followed a strategy developed after the Virgina Tech shootings, another mass shooting in a state sponsored "gun free zone." Rather than waiting for backup or overwhelming responding force, Officer Munley rushed with her partner to the sound of guns. Within seconds of arrival, she shot the killer four times and stopped the death clock.

Ron Borsch, police trainer at the SEALE Regional Training Academy in Bedford, Ohio is an especially vocal proponent of training for active shooter incidents. He stresses the training that Officer Munley followed so well: get in the fight, don't wait; locate and immobilize the shooter; seconds count to save lives. This new strategy is replacing the old mindset to contain the problem while waiting for SWAT to actually take action, a disaster at Columbine, a disaster at the Amish school in Pennsylvania, a disaster at Virginia Tech.

Missed by the press, ignored by politicians, mass shootings now take place almost exclusively in "gun-free zones", areas where law abiding citizens are disarmed by force of law. The crazies have proven to be remarkably adept at attacking these soft spots. They've proven equally adept at collapsing at the very first armed resistance.

It's time we follow the Israeli model, proven effective in a nation also at war against enemies that strive for terror. Like Israel, let's arm our military, whether on base or off, on duty or not. Let's enable them to protect themselves against the further attacks which are certain to come. Let's empower them to help defend the rest of us.

Let's recognize the truth that Ron Borsch teaches: seconds count and only an immediate response will stop the death clock. At a minimum, interrupting the active shooter will slow the rate of killing and allow time for responders to arrive. In the best case, the death clock will be stopped.

Let's heed the example of the New Life Church in Arvada, Colorado, which, when threatened, called for volunteers from among its congregation to help guard its flock. Church member Jeanne Assam, a CCW holder, answered the call and later answered the challenge when a deranged visitor opened fire. Ms. Assam stopped the death clock and is credited with saving countless lives.

Let's learn the costly lessons of Killeen spread over two decades, where now the spirits of 36 unnecessarily lost lives speak to us, asking that we quit playing political games with so-called gun control and start treating the lives of our friends and neighbors as extraordinarily valuable, not to be wasted by leaders who are more afraid of the people they lead than the people they fight.

RELATED LINKS: Female Church Member with Personal Pistol Kills Assassing, Saves Lives
Ten Years Later, It's True: After Guns Have Been Outlawed, Only Outlaws Have Guns
Terrorists in America Switching to "Plan B"?
Is Virginia Tech Education's "9/11"?
Texas Learns 9/11 Lesson From Virginia Tech

Let's arm our military… or at the very least let's arm our women.

After Heller, Violent Crime Down in D.C.

According to Peter J. Nickles, the attorney general of the District of Columbia, in the past year all violent crime in the District has declined, some categories by double digits. Armed robbery is down 12 percent and armed assaults, 14 percent. Total violent crime has fallen 5 percent.

Finally, D.C. joins the rest of the country in showing that more guns equal less crime, as legally armed citizens level the field.

Congratulations to all the citizens of our nation's capitol, those who legally own guns and all the rest who benefit from the character of the few.

Didn't the gun control people forecast the opposite result, that if guns became more easily available, crime would increase?

Gun Sales High Today, Higher Tomorrow

There is one segment of the economy that the Obama administration has caused to boom, firearms and ammunition. Gun sales are up 50% since the election and popular calibers of ammunition are either extraordinarily expensive or impossible to find as gun owners clear store shelves of anything that will go bang. Manufacturers are running at capacity, expanding production and hiring as quickly as possible.

President Obama's latest strategy to send sales through the roof, in the forms of both repeat business to existing owners as they "stock up", and to first-time purchasers, is the planned release of dozens of hardened terrorists into the cities and towns of America. These men are proven killers, trained in the camps of al-Qaeda. Many have killed Americans, each has sworn to. None have shown remorse. None are rehabilitated. Their only skill, their only experience is terrorism.

They are professional killers. They prefer to kill civilians if possible, women and children are preferred.

The Department of Homeland Security spends scores of billions of dollars each year to keep people like this out, to keep them off airplanes, away from subways, distant from the seats of power. They are not legally allowed to enter the U. S. These are creepy-crawlies of modern times, the anti-heroes of future non-fiction 24 or Die Hard movies.

These are men the likes of which our military are trained to shoot on sight. Yet one day soon they'll be strolling through our malls and airports, touring skyscrapers in Chicago, Seattle and Los Angeles, scoping out athletic stadiums in New York and Denver.

With their decision to admit the Gitmo detainees into the U. S., Attorney General Eric Holder and President Obama have guaranteed full employment at Ruger, Colt's and Smith & Wesson for years to come.

Insult is added to injury: These folks will be paid to live here, their expenses paid with federal tax dollars.

Justice Scalia Gets His Gun

In an eagerly anticipated and strongly worded decision, Justice Antonin Scalia this morning led the Supreme Court to discover and define the Second Amendment as a guarantee of an individual's right to own firearms.

In a stunning but narrow 5-4 rebuke to liberal dogma of the past 30 years, where penumbras carried more weight than words, SCOTUS has confirmed what is known as the standard view of the amendment, that it means what it says.

While the decision does not automatically expand Second Amendment protections and prohibitions to affect state laws, it will immediately change the terms by which those restrictions are debated. In the long run, it is likely that some future case will arise where the issue of "incorporation" will be decided by the Court under either the 14th Amendment or the Privilege Clause, thereby bringing the Second Amendment to a level with the First and Fourth.

The case, which reached the Court as Heller vs. The District, is a special tribute to the foresight and conviction of one man, Robert Levy. Mr. Levy, who has never owned a gun, structured and financed the case, selected the plaintiffs, recruited the lawyers and developed the strategies that led to today's decision. At leaset initially, he did so against the wishes of the pro-Scond Amendment establishment, much of which believed at the beginning of the case, before the elevation of Roberts and Alito to the Court, that the risks as too large.

As Heller gained traction, particularly after an unambiguous decision by the Appellate court overturning D.C.'s handgun ban based on a finding that it was unconstitutional, the arguments and briefs filed by the opposing camps became a treasure trove of Second Amendment scholarship that will be studied by constitutional scholars for a century.

Justice Scalia, widely regarded as the shootingest Justice, was obviously enthusiastic in his writing, defining for history the Constitution's protection of the individual's right to keep and bear arms.

RELATED LINKS: Heller Will Win in June. How Big? has a complete review of the case and more than a dozen links to its history.

Heartfelt appreciation to Bob Levy, Alan Gura and the history-making team they put together.

Heller To Be Decided Tomorrow

A decision in Heller vs. The District, the landmark Second Amendment case before the Supreme Court, will be announced tomorrow, the last day of the Court's year.

RELATED LINKS: Heller Will Win in June. How Big?

I'll bet that Justice Scalia writes the opinion.

Obama: A Constitutional Law Professor Without A Position on the Constitution

For ten years Sen. Barack Obama made a portion of his income as an instructor, he says professor, of constitutional law at university level.

In tonight's debate, the professor was unable to state his position on the most significant constitutional issue to reach the Supreme Court in the past 20 years.

Leaving aside the merits of Heller v. District of Columbia, which will be the first SCOTUS interpretation of the 2nd Amendment Supreme Court in 70 years, Sen. Obama's inability to have any position is troubling.

Under fairly intense questioning, he said that he hadn't read anything on the case and has no opinion as to its outcome.

Of course, he had similar difficult with positions on a number of issues.

Heller WIll Win in June. How Big?

Dick Heller is a Federal security guard who lives and works in the District of Columbia. He's the named original plaintiff in the most significant constitutional case to reach the Supreme Court in several decades and the most significant Second Amendment case since the signing.

After 90 minutes spent watching lawyers and justices parsing facts, laws and the Constitution, when Mr. Heller was asked by a reporter after the hearing why he took his case all the way to SCOTUS he had an answer, which I'll closely paraphrase:

I'm a federal guard. I carry a gun at work to protect the politicians. When I go home, though, they've decided that my life is not worth as much. They've decided I can't use a gun to defend myself at home.

It was apparent from the questions that most of the Justices had read most or all of the briefs and attachments, by my count nearly 2,000 pages altogether. The questions seemed more focused on expanding fissures than on climbing new ground.

Justice Kennedy, who most commentators put into the undecided category before the hearing, seemed an enthusiastic supporter of an individual right. In fact, Kennedy observed of one of the few previous SCOTUS rulings on the Second Amendment "Miller may be deficient" in its interpretation of the individual right. That will warm NRA members' hearts across the land.

Walter Dellinger, outside counsel for the district of Columbia and a lawyer with vast experience arguing before SCOTUS, was not particularly impressive and seemed off pace during many of the questions. He was asked—under his theory that the Second Amendment contains an individual right but that right applies only in support of a state's militia—when would an individual have occasion to defend that right in court. He answered that an individual could only sue on behalf of his Second Amendment right if the Federal government were disarming his state's militia.

Don't expect that argument to surface ever again. I doubt Dellinger will mention it in his memoirs; it was not his finest hour.

Solicitor General Clements did much better for his position, to support the Bush Administration's case that there is an individual right to arms, but the meaning of the right can be determined by the government, up to and including a complete ban.

While he did a good job, Clements' position was essentially wishy-washy, he wanted to have his cake and eat it, too. I've heard theories that his thought was to present a middle of the road position that might enable Justices with disparate views to reach common ground by defining an individual right subject to government controls. If so, his compromise to get votes is likely unnecessary.

Finally there came Alan Gura, counsel for Heller. Gura is noticeably younger than his peers, whether counsel or Justices. He has much less experience than Dellinger, but made a better presentation. Interestingly, the Justices allowed him a much longer opening statement without interruptions, which is steadying. Justice Breyer, no friend of the Second Amendment opened by asking a convoluted multi-phase question: it ran for 284 words, was almost certainly aimed at breaking into the flow of Mr. Gura's presentation and added absolutely nothing to the argument.

Justice Ginsburg, rumored to be in poor health, in one of her questions seemingly confused "people" with "militia" even while inserting a previously undiscovered gender issue. She may, however, come along with a finding for an individual right, given her regard for the permanence of the Constitution itself and her ability to see rights even when not they are not mentioned in the document. You can see here the seed of a possible positive Ginsburg vote:

JUSTICE GINSBURG: -- short of that, just to get your position clear, short of reactivating State militias, on your reading does the Second Amendment have any effect today as a restraint on legislation?

MR. DELLINGER: It would, Justice Ginsburg, if the State had a militia and had attributes of the militia contrary to a Federal law. And if it didn't --

JUSTICE GINSBURG: But it doesn't, as far as I know.

MR. DELLINGER: As far as I know, today it doesn't. And I'm not -- and the Respondents make that, that argument that the amendment is without a use. But you don't make up a new use for an amendment whose prohibitions aren't being violated.

The best back and forth was this:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: What is -- what is reasonable about a total ban on possession?

MR. DELLINGER: What is reasonable about a total ban on possession is that it's a ban only an the possession of one kind of weapon, of handguns, that's been considered especially -- especially dangerous. The

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So if you have a law that prohibits the possession of books, it's all right if you allow the possession of newspapers?

The worst of the comments afterward? This from Mayor Adrian Fenty of the District of Columbia

We have long had a law in the District of Columbia that handguns are banned in the city. Thirty years ago, as is the case today, handguns represent a disproportionate number of crimes in the District of Columbia, everything from homicides, to robberies to rape. (Emphasis added.)

Wow.

My projected outcome? D.C. law struck down based on violation of the Second Amendment. 6-3 vote. That's all, less than a paragraph.

Though in this case "all" represents a true home run for civil rights.

RELATED POSTS:
Dick Cheney Opposes Gun Control! I Read it in the Post
Heller's Friends: The Intellectuals Explore Unintended Consequences
State AGs; 31 to 5, in Favor of Heller
Heller: The Analysis of Crime Statistics
Heller Has More Friends
Heller's Friends: The Doctors' Prescription
Heller's Friends in Congress, And One More
Heller’s Friends: Claremont Institute and the Scholars
The Heller Posse: A Roundup of Briefs: The NRA
Heller: The Good Guys Shoot Back, With Effect
On Heller: Shot in the Back by the Bush DOJ

For even more on the case and the subject, click here.

For a PDF transcript of today's hearing and arguments at the Supreme Court of the United States, click here.

Thank you, Dick Heller. Thank you to all of the volunteers and the volunteer lawyers. Thank you most of all, Robert Levy. Win, lose or draw, you've made one heck of a stab at it.

While it's premature to break out the champagne, it might be a good idea to have a bottle or three on hand for the decision in June.

Dick Cheney Opposes Gun Control! I Read It in The Post

America's newspapers are having a tough time of it. Plummeting circulation, declining ad revenues, and news stories that aren't.

The latest headline maker is the discovery by The Washington Post that Vice President Cheney opposes gun control! Who'd have thought?

This month Mr. Cheney joined a brief filed by 305 lawmakers in the Supreme Court case over the constitutionality of the District's gun control laws. A federal appeals court struck down the gun ban -- the most far-reaching in the nation -- as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The District appealed the case, which is scheduled to be argued on March 18; Mr. Cheney and the lawmakers urged the justices to uphold the lower court ruling, which concludes that "once it is determined -- as we have done -- that handguns are 'Arms' referred to in the Second Amendment, it is not open to the District to ban them."

As The Post would say, the problem is are two:

This is now an old story. The 305 bipartisan members of the House and Senate who filed the brief with Mr. Cheney did so more than ten days ago. Old news.

Past that, The Post seems to want to have it two ways. On the one hand, Dick Cheney is the evil twin, secretly running the executive branch and his boss, who has been reported for some years by The Post as being too dim to turn off a bulb. On the other hand, they describe Mr. Cheney as no more than a hired hand, who in this instance surprises by disregarding the boss' directions.

Back to The Post

The problem is, Mr. Cheney's position puts him at odds with the administration's official stance in the case. Rather than rubber-stamp the lower court decision, Solicitor General Paul D. Clement is arguing that the Second Amendment bestows an individual right but that "protection of individual rights does not render all laws limiting gun ownership automatically invalid." Mr. Clement worries that adopting the rationale of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit could invalidate a host of federal gun control laws; he argues for a more flexible approach that would, for example, allow a court to consider public safety concerns when analyzing the constitutionality of a firearms regulation. The brief is carefully written, thoughtful and apparently not radical enough for Mr. Cheney.

It should surprise no one that The Post's evaluation of SG Clement's brief as carefully written and thoughtful is the sound of one hand clapping. Most commentators, perhaps much more experienced in matters of briefs to SCOTUS, have found in the brief evidence of haste, incoherence, missing essential parts, lacking grounding, all wrapped in elementary school grammar. The leading theory is that it was thrown together at the last moment and tossed over the transom.

The Post theorizes that Vice President Cheney lost the battle for the Second Amendment within the Administration. Possibly so, but it's more likely that he didn't know of the content of the SG's brief until after it was filed. Fortunately, it is so poorly written as to offer little risk of directing the thoughts of more than one or two of the Justices. More likely is it that the "Capitol Hill gang," as The Post calls the bipartisan majority who signed onto Mr. Cheney's much better brief, will influence the Justices.

Heck, next there will be a story in The New York Times suggesting that Senator McCain's disgruntled former staffers are concerned about the Vice President's shooting expeditions with members of the NRA.

What is the legacy media coming to?

Josh Sugarmann, Federally Licensed as a Gun Dealer

I wouldn't have believed it. In fact, I didn't believe it. So, I went to the ATF myself to check it out.

It's true, Josh Sugarmann, Executive Director of the Violence Policy Center, formerly with the National Center to Ban Handguns, holds a federal license for gun dealing.

I saw this first on Dave Hardy's site, Arms & The Law, which is always well worth reading. While I trust Dave implicitly, Dave didn't list a source and I didn't want to find myself chasing an Internet legend. So, off to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms did I go. A short search later and voila:

Here is a copy of Mr. Sugarmann's very own personal Federal Firearms (Dealers) License, registered to the same address as the headquarters for Violence Policy Center in Washington, D. C.

For years, FFL's have been difficult to get and expensive and difficult to keep. They generally require some sort of proof that the holder is actually in the business. If memory serves, they also require proof of compliance with local ordinances and zoning rules. Given the address on Rhode Island Avenue, NW in Washington, DC, it's difficult to imagine how Mr. Sugarmann could be complying.

Past that, of course, it's just plain strange that the leader of one of the most virulent anti-gun groups, one heavily financed by the Joyce Foundation, would align himself with the 60,000 gun dealers in the country.

Strange. Very strange.

UPDATE and BUMP: According to NRA-ILA, among other requirements,

To be eligible to obtain an FFL, a person must meet the following requirements:

5. Has in a State premises from which he conducts or intends to conduct business (a business or home as long as it is a permanent structure.) The business must be open to the clientele designated by the licensee to be served;

6. Certifies that (a) "the business to be conducted under the license is not prohibited by State or local law in the place where the licensed premise is located;" (b) "within 30 days after the application is approved the business will comply with the requirements of State and local law applicable to the conduct of the business;" (c) "the business will not be conducted under the license until the requirements of State and local law applicable to the business have been met;" (d) "the applicant has sent or delivered a form to be prescribed by the Secretary, to the chief law enforcement officer of the locality in which the premises are located, which indicates that the applicant intends to apply for a Federal firearms license;" and (e) "the business will not be conducted under the license until the requirements of State and local laws are met," including local zoning ordinances.

The first three words are interesting, "Has in a State…" So far, all the databases that I've checked are similar in one respect in that none list FFL dealers in the District of Columbia. Makes sense given that handguns are banned and long guns must be disassembled and inoperative.

Not to mention all the competition from unlicensed dealers strolling the streets.

Past that, though, is the second sentence of Section 5.

The business must be open to the clientele designated by the licensee to be served;

So, are the corporate offices of the Violence Policy Center open to customers seeking Glocks, Colts and Remingtons?

It's difficult to believe that VPC has complied with any of the subsections of Section 6.

I'll have to go back to the Heller filings to see if Mr. Sugarmann and VPC are in there for anything more than a citation or two.

Heller's Friends: The Intellectuals Explore Unintended Consequences

I'm a sucker for irony, especially for what I think of as intellectual irony, which is when allegedly smart people discover that fate doesn't necessarily follow the path they've set for it. So naturally, I've enjoyed reading the amicus brief filed in support of Heller by The Center for Individual Freedom.

This is the ninth in a series of reviews of the SCOTUS briefs supporting Heller in the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller.

The brief is in two major sections. The first, and less fun but still very useful section, describes how United States v. Miller has been misinterpreted for 70 years by most lesser courts and almost all media. Most readers will recall that Miller was decided in favor of the government based on the Court's the finding that a sawed-off shotgun is not suitable for military work. These authors make abundantly clear two very significant points.

First, as always emphasis added:

In Miller, criminal defendants Jack Miller and Frank Layton were charged in federal court with “unlawfully, knowingly, willfully, and feloniously” transporting an unregistered shotgun with a barrel fewer than the required 18 inches in length from Oklahoma to Arkansas in violation of Section 11 of the National Firearms Act. Defendants demurred, and the trial court sustained the Demurrer on the basis that the National Firearms Act “offend[ed] the inhibition of the Second Amendment to the Constitution.”

Thus, it must initially be noted that the trial court recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment, disproving any assertion that early federal courts uniformly recognized only a collective states’ right.

Following the trial court’s dismissal, the government appealed, ultimately to the Supreme Court. The defendants, however, refused to even appear before the Supreme Court to defend their position or engage in oral argument, as their indictment had been quashed. Because no appearance by counsel was made on behalf of the defendants, their position thus wasn’t argued.

As a result, a unanimous Supreme Court held only that the failure of the defendants to appear for argument rendered the Court unable to determine whether the Second Amendment protected the defendants’ right to keep and bear the firearm in question:

“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

Thus, the Court didn’t reject an individual right of the people to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment, nor did it hold that the Second Amendment creates a collective states’ right. Rather, the Court observed that the absence of evidence entered into the record rendered it unable to thoroughly apply the Second Amendment’s provisions to the allegations in question.

This argument provides the basis for the Heller position that an individual rights interpretation is not inconsistent with the only previous SCOTUS decision this century.

The second section is wildly fun. It is here that the authors explore what none have before: What happens if the District wins its argument?

The summary is in the section title

A Collective Right To Keep And Bear Arms Would Contradict Other Constitutional Provisions, Call The National Guard Into Question, And Collide With Existing Federal Firearms Laws

The first sentence lays out the issue that I addressed two months ago in Where's the Militia? I Want To Enlist!

If this Court accepts Petitioners’ collective right proposition, then the Second Amendment guarantees state governments the right to maintain military instruments as a counterweight to the federal military.

It seems unarguable. The ramifications, though, are breathtaking.

[I]f the Second Amendment creates only a state right, then that contradicts several military power provisions within the Constitution, it likely renders the National Guard as currently administered unconstitutional, and it potentially allows state governments the right to disregard federal firearms laws that presently limit states’ ability to formulate a powerful militia.

This creates a whole new set of very powerful states' rights, almost whole cloth, none of which have any case law upon which courts, states or people can rely. Among the questions are these:

If Petitioners are correct in their contention that the Second Amendment protects the states’ right to keep and bear arms as a bulwark against federal power, then almost any federal measure limiting state militia independence in the manner described above could suddenly be subject to dispute and litigation.

***
If Petitioners are correct in their assertion that the Second Amendment protects only the states’ right to maintain militias, then federal firearms laws are also suddenly open to legal challenge. Assuming the validity of Petitioners’ collective right view, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to preserve state militia independence from federal control and suppression. In turn, this would require that state militias be sufficiently powerful and independent to repel the federal military. Because arming and maintaining a state militia of sufficient size and force would be extremely expensive, states could opt to compel citizens to obtain and preserve firearms and other military instruments. By doing so, states would not only save money, but also ensure that citizen militia members would naturally become more familiar with their weapons without as much need for formal, periodic, costly state training.

At present, the federal government strictly licenses and taxes fully automatic firearms. This could change.

Obviously, a collective right view of the Second Amendment as applied to such a system would run head-on into existing federal firearms laws. As just one example, the federal prohibition against automatic weapons could suddenly be in jeopardy.

Thus, inherent in Petitioners’ collective right position is the consequent power of states to challenge discordant firearms laws and enact legislation authorizing possession of weaponry currently prohibited by federal law. Furthermore, a collective right holding could allow a dramatically broader variety of arms in the hands of citizens than would a decision recognizing an individual right of the people to keep and bear arms. This is because an individual rights view would extend to individualized weapons only, subject to reasonable restriction. In contrast, a collective right view could logically include all variety of weapons currently within the federal arsenal, because the states would be empowered to arm themselves sufficiently to thwart those same federal forces.

If the purpose of the Second Amendment is as the District say it is, then it is incumbent on the 50 states to arm up. It is their duty.

If the logic behind the Second Amendment is to preserve the right of states to maintain militias that constitute a counterweight to federal forces, as Petitioners contend, then states would logically be allowed to keep and bear even the most potent and destructive weapons of modern warfare.

Having the weapons, the states need a structure which doesn't exist today.

Given this gradual transformation, and the current structure of the National Guard, it logically cannot serve the role of state militia that underlies Petitioners’ collective right interpretation of the Second Amendment. Stated differently, the National Guard cannot stand as a state bulwark against abuses by the federal government, because it now exists primarily as a federal force subject to national control.

***
Given this fact, the National Guard’s status as an organization subject to federal authority might immediately be exposed to challenge if Petitioners’ collective right proposition is adopted. Thus, should Petitioners’ contention that the Second Amendment confers only a collective right upon the states prevail, then a dramatic reexamination of other relationships between state and federal governments will be necessary. If this Court rules that the Second Amendment effectuates the proposition that state militias exist to check federal power, then other seemingly settled questions of state-federal relations may be reopened to question.

Not only is this path difficult to imagine, given its obvious circularity, but it is nearly impossible to imagine this Court opening up the fifty years of litigation that would be necessary for the courts to draw the new lines of authority between the people, their states and the federal government.

In fact, such a decision would put some real meaning behind the term federal.

RELATED LINKS:
State AGs; 31 to 5, in Favor of Heller
Heller: The Analysis of Crime Statistics
Heller Has More Friends
Heller's Friends: The Doctors' Prescription
Heller's Friends in Congress, And One More
Heller’s Friends: Claremont Institute and the Scholars
The Heller Posse: A Roundup of Briefs: The NRA
Heller: The Good Guys Shoot Back, With Effect
On Heller: Shot in the Back by the Bush DOJ

For even more on the case and the subject, click here.

Gee, I'd almost like to see it happen. Almost.

State AGs: 31 to 5, in Favor of Heller

Dave Kopel, who helped author one of the Heller briefs and whose work is cited in a dozen more, notes at The Volokh Conspiracy that fully 31 of the states' Attorneys General have filed a brief in favor of Heller, compared to 5 that support the District of Columbia's position. That's a significant ratio.

He notes a real surprise in the brief. Not only do the states' AGs argue for an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. They go miles further by arguing for incorporation of the Second Amendment, the effect of which would be to provide Second Amendment protection from incursion by state and local authorities.

That 31 states would argue in favor of incorporation has got to be a five aces hand. These are the folks actually on the firing line against crime, so their voice is significant.

Past that, the next time a politically astute police association lines up the chiefs in favor of greater regulation, this will be a terrific brief to pull out of the closet.

Concurring Links has some very impressive maps showing how the states line up. It's interesting that except for Hawaii the states supporting the District are contiguous northeastern neighbors.

RELATED LINKS:
Heller: The Analysis of Crime Statistics
Heller Has More Friends
Heller's Friends: The Doctors' Prescription
Heller's Friends in Congress, And One More
Heller’s Friends: Claremont Institute and the Scholars
The Heller Posse: A Roundup of Briefs: The NRA
Heller: The Good Guys Shoot Back, With Effect
On Heller: Shot in the Back by the Bush DOJ

For even more on the case and the subject, click here.

History is in the making here and things will never be quite the same.

Heller: The Analysis of Crime Statistics

This is eighth in a series of reviews of the briefs filed with the Supreme Court supporting the Second Amendment in the historic case District of Columbia vs. Heller.

The Heller team tasked a group of 22 distinguished professors–of law, economics, political science, history and physics–to examine the statistics used by the District and its allies to support their contention that homicides fell substantially and abruptly after implementation of the 1977 ban on handguns within the District.

This team, their amici brief is here, looked at D.C.'s murder numbers compared to those of three other areas: the city of Baltimore, the neighboring states of Virginia and Maryland, and the entire United States.

They found, perhaps surprising no one but those who depend on legacy media for their information, that in the years prior to the ban, D.C. ranked 15th for murder among American cities. In the 30 years since, the city has captured the title "Murder Capital" 15 times and ranked in the top 4 at least 20 times. In only one of the 30 years has the murder rate been as low as it was before the law.

Thus, whether looking at the period from 1968 to 1987, or including the later period, there is no evidence that the District handgun ban reduced the District’s murder rate.

Not exactly a success story.

One wonders how the politicians, or the lawyers supporting them, can look anyone in the eye.

Given the conservative nature of the authors of this brief, I have to believe that thought long and hard before adding the second sentence, emphasis added:

Whether one examines the District’s murder rates relative to other large US cities, the neighboring states of Maryland and Virginia, or relative to the US as a whole there is no evidence that the ban reduced the District’s relative murder rate. Indeed, if anything, the evidence points to the opposite conclusion.

Again, the commonsensical:

Everyone wants to disarm criminals. However, the problem with bans is who is most likely to obey them. If the ban primarily disarms lawabiding citizens and not criminals, the ban can have the opposite effect of what was intended.

This brief devastates any argument supporting the argument that the D. C. gun ban has worked. It hasn't, and the proof is here, where it will be available to reference for years to come.

RELATED LINKS:
Heller Has More Friends
Heller's Friends: The Doctors' Prescription
Heller's Friends in Congress, And One More
Heller’s Friends: Claremont Institute and the Scholars
The Heller Posse: A Roundup of Briefs: The NRA
Heller: The Good Guys Shoot Back, With Effect
On Heller: Shot in the Back by the Bush DOJ

For even more on the case and the subject, click here.

One could build a heck of a University out of this faculty. It's great to see them step up.

Heller Has More Friends

Not that numbers mean all that much, but in the landmark case at the Supreme Court, District of Columbia vs. Heller, 45 organizations have filed amici briefs in support of Heller. That's more than twice as many as were filed by the anti-gun activists supporting D.C.

The pro-Second Amendment crowd have a definite edge in big names and intellectual heft as well. The authors of the pro-Heller amici briefs are a constellation of rising stars, men and women with serious weight between their ears.

It also looks like the Heller folks have done a much better job of coordinating their briefs and delegating specific tasks amongst those filing. Some are focused on linguistics, some on history. Some briefs look at crime trends, others at defensive uses. One, which I've looked forward to reading, is called the Error Brief by insiders. Its sole task is to point to the outright mistakes included by the District and its allies.

D.C.'s got academics. So does Heller.

D.C.'s got political bigwigs, 18 of them. Heller's got 300, and bigger names.

The district has former Attorneys General, so does Heller.

In the latter category, though, the District clearly leads in terms of AGs with experience.

After all, Janet Reno has actually used guns on completely innocent American citizens, so she brings a truly unique view to the case. From Ms. Reno's perspective even one gun outside the government's control is too many.

I've read nearly a dozen of the Heller briefs so far. Several of them raise the possibility of a future tyrannical government as a bedrock reason the founders included the Second Amendment among the ten that allowed ratification. I'm almost wishing that one of the amici briefs had mentioned Ruby Ridge or the tanks of Waco as examples of how close we've come to seeing a faction of government tip out of control.

Waco, where 80 men, women and children were killed by federal agents, remains the deadliest action taken by the government against American citizens on U. S. soil since the Civil War. AG Reno pulled the trigger.

RELATED LINKS:
Heller's Friends: The Doctors' Prescription
Heller's Friends in Congress, And One More
Heller’s Friends: Claremont Institute and the Scholars
The Heller Posse: A Roundup of Briefs: The NRA
Heller: The Good Guys Shoot Back, With Effect
On Heller: Shot in the Back by the Bush DOJ

For even more on the case and the subject, click here.

I wonder whose idea it was to let Reno into the discussion? Stupid, stupid.

Heller's Friends: The Doctors' Prescription

This is sixth in a series of reviews of the briefs filed with the Supreme Court supporting the Second Amendment in the historic case District of Columbia vs. Heller.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons was founded in 1943 to represent thousands of physicians in all types of practices and specialties. It has a decidedly more conservative perspective than does the AMA.

Their brief speaks to three points in particular:

• The weakest members of society often need protection from the strongest;
• The amici briefs filed by medical professionals supporting the District relied on seriously flawed studies and logic to support their positions; and,
• Too many of their colleagues ignore consideration of any comparative benefit that accrues from widespread or individual ownership of firearms.

First, the recognition that opinions held by many of their colleagues are based on flawed or even cooked studies:

…contemporary “medical” studies about the benefits and harms of gun ownership should have no effect on interpreting a provision of a constitution enacted over 200 years ago. Yet the amici briefs filed by the medical groups APHA and AAP implicitly argue for interpreting the Constitution in a manner that is subject to the latest claims of one-sided studies deficient in credibility…

***
The biggest study in support of gun control in the past decade was published by then-Professor Michael Bellesiles, who wrote a book entitled Arming America, The Origins of a National Gun Culture (2000). Garry Wills gave it a glowing review in The New York Times, but admitted later that “I was took. The book is a fraud.” Bellesiles later resigned from his position as Professor of History at Emory University in Atlanta when an independent commit- tee of scholars examined his work and concluded that “his scholarly integrity is seriously in question.” George Mason University’s History News Network, “Summary of the Emory Report on Michael Bellesiles”

But citations of flawed studies have undermined the judiciary. Four reported decisions have relied on Bellesiles’ work, and the Ninth Circuit felt compelled to amend one of its prior rulings to purge its prior reference to the then-discredited Bellesiles.

D.C.’s amici say that children cannot be taught gun safety, but here’s a fun tidbit…

In Switzerland, a country where D.C.-style gun control is rejected, thousands of children have competed in an annual celebration of guns since 1657: In Zurich [today], some 5,631 teens – 4,046 boys and 1,585 girls, aged 13-17 – have finished firing the Swiss service rifle, and it’s time for the shootoff. That rifle is the SIG Strumgeweher (assault rifle) model 1990 (Stgw 90), a selective fire, 5.6 mm rifle with folding skeleton stock, bayonet lug, bipod, and grenade launcher.

If it were impossible to teach children gun safety, as AAP claims in its brief, then this annual event could not exist.

***
AAP’s emphasis on the death of children from firearms is also misleading. One study not cited by AAP found that 71% of the children and adolescents who were injured in drive-by shootings were, in fact, “documented members of violent street gangs.”

Firearm accident rates for children in the United States have generally declined for a hundred years, with sharper declines in the last several decades since 1975. By 1986 the accidental firearm death rate had fallen to about 6 per million, and by 1993 dropped further to only 5 per million. That is comparable to the rate of serious injury from vaccination, a risk widely accepted within the medical profession and even the public at large

The amici brief submitted by the American Public Health Association cites 30,000 deaths and 70,000 injuries from firearms, but does not say how many resulted from use of illegal rather than lawful guns and how many were in self- defense against illegal activity.

They raise an absolutely fascinating counter-argument, along with 100cc worth of facts to support it.

The same logic underlying their briefs’ approach to gun control could be used to insist on a ban on automobiles or swimming pools, by focusing only on the harm they cause and failing to ad- dress their benefits. But the benefits of guns are un- deniable: one physician surveyed published studies and estimated that the defensive use of guns saves 25 to 75 lives for every one lost to a gun.

***
While the magnitude of that comparative benefit may be debated, there is no denying that there are substantial benefits from gun ownership, and no discussion of the harm is complete without addressing the benefits. Virtually all medical professionals support use of drugs and vaccines that cause serious adverse effects as long as they confer greater benefits, yet that basic analytical approach is missing from Petitioners’ Medical Amici.

They make the argument that guns are primarily a defensive weapon, empowering defenders, especially weaker defenders, to avoid surrender and the harm that results.

The misperception of guns as primarily an offensive weapon can be traced to the influence of the media: an offensive use of a gun that causes violence is startling news, while a defensive use that prevents violence is not. Had someone used a gun to avert the 9/11 massacre, it would not have generated anything near the amount of news that did result.

By focusing only on harm resultant from an activity, those submissions falsely conclude that gun ownership is itself harmful. With that approach they would conclude that vaccines, heart surgery, and even bathtubs are harmful and could be profitably banned. But all those products and services – like the ownership of guns – confer benefits that far exceed the attendant harm.

And they very effectively bring the general to the specific.

Gun control, like the D.C. statutes at issue here, robs citizens of the ability to defend themselves.

This past December, Matthew Murray arrived at New Life Church in Colorado Springs with an assault rifle, two handguns, and as many as 1000 rounds of ammunition. In the parking lot he killed two teenage sisters and wounded their father, and then proceeded towards hundreds of people at the church itself. A horrible massacre was averted when churchgoer Jeanne Assam repeatedly shot Murray in a defensive use of her own weapon. Had gun control prevented Assam from carrying her gun, Murray would likely have killed hundreds of people. The police responded within minutes to 911 calls, but that was not quick enough to stop the gunman. Only meaningful self- defense can do that.

The bring out a strong argument that all of society is better off, safer, with guns than without them.

Contrary to public perception, violence was worse before the advent of guns: [M]urderous brawls and violent deaths at the hands of robbers were everyday occurrences in medieval England. The average annual homicide rates for five rural counties, studied at scattered intervals between 1202 and 1276, [were found to have] ranged from 9 per 100,000 in Norfolk population to 23 in Kent .... Knives, axes, cudgels, and other implements found in every agricultural community were the typical instruments of death

We've been bombarded in recent years by too many in the medical community saying bad, bad.

Guns are not pathogens, and the loss of lives from guns is not a public health phenomenon in any meaningful sense. Vaccines could be taken as a public health analogy for guns. Vaccines are widely recommended or even mandated with the support of the APHA and AAP despite the fact that many are killed or injured by them, and their effectiveness is imperfect. But the APHA’s and AAP’s logic could be applied to vaccines with the false conclusion that all vaccination programs are harmful because all vaccines have some side effects. The benefits of vaccines and guns are both indirect, but the benefits are very real in both cases, and it is essential to address those benefits in any argument attempting to ban the product.

Then, a strong close, as the doctors remind the Justices of what a great Justice has written.

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story considered the Second Amendment to be the most important individual right of all: The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

The doctors' brief is here.

RELATED LINKS:
Heller's Friends in Congress, And One More
Heller’s Friends: Claremont Institute and the Scholars
The Heller Posse: A Roundup of Briefs: The NRA
Heller: The Good Guys Shoot Back, With Effect
On Heller: Shot in the Back by the Bush DOJ

For even more on the case and the subject, click here.

Thank goodness, Marcus Welby has arrived.

Heller's Friends in Congress, And One More

The news is in the details. The newest amici brief is signed by 250 Members of Congress, 55 Senators and The President of the Senate, Vice President Dick Cheney.

More later, but wow.

UPDATE: Wow, again.

The single biggest headline out of the Congressional brief is that the 300 signers and the Vice President have taken a position directly contradictory to that of the Solicitor General, the official representative of the Bush administration.

The SG has called for SCOTUS to send the case back to the lower courts in order to define what reasonable regulation might be. The problem is that doing so either implies or makes the case that a ban on handguns might be within a definition of reasonable.

The congressional brief takes deliberate aim at that position with the observation that a ban of handguns is unconstitutional on the face of it and neither needs nor deserves further consideration.

While Congress has fairly routinely taken legal positions that differ from the various administrations in power, I would be shocked if there has been any other case in recent memory where a sitting Vice President and member of the same political party as the President has taken a position at SCOTUS different from that of the Solicitor General.

Again, the historic texture is fascinating though the authorship is a little less lyrical than some of the other briefs.

Being politicians, they begin by telling the Justices who and how important they are.

As Federal officials, we have a fundamental interest in protecting the constitutional rights of our constituents and the American people in general.

There's the been there, done that language that probably helps put an institutional framework around it.

On several occasions, in different epochs of American history, the Congress enacted statutory texts which explicitly declared its understanding of the Second Amendment as guaranteeing fundamental, individual rights.

The Amici Curiae wish to bring their unique perspective to this Court’s attention to explain to the Court the historical meaning of the Second Amendment as understood by the Congress, and why the District’s firearms prohibitions at issue infringe on the rights of the law-abiding citizens of the District of Columbia as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

This might help with a few of the Justices and it is fascinating texture to add to the case.

Following the abolition of slavery, Congress sought to end the incidents of slavery, including prohibitions on possession of firearms by African Americans. In 1866, over two-thirds of Congress passed the Freedmen’s Bureau Act, which declared 3 protection for the “full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and . . . estate . . ., including the constitutional right to bear arms . . . .”

This is a reminder that Congresspersons really don't like to have their chains yanked by lesser officials.

In 1906, Congress empowered the District to pass “such usual and reasonable police regulations” deemed necessary to regulate firearms, which today remains the District’s only delegation to regulate firearms. A ban on handguns is both unusual and unreasonable.

Again, we're important. Of course, they are.

This Court should give due deference to the repeated findings over different historical epochs by Congress, a co-equal branch of government, that the Amendment guarantees the personal right to possess firearms.

The hammer, useful against the District but I bet a lot of Democrats signed this brief in order to hit President Bush with it as well. No need for remand. Headline: Democrats protect Second Amendment against Bush attack!

The District’s prohibitions on mere possession by law-abiding persons of handguns in the home and having usable firearms there are unreasonable per se. No purpose would be served by remanding this case for further fact finding or other proceedings.

I like this, with its reference to the first clause as a political principle. What would we do without politicians?

The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear 6 arms, shall not be infringed.” This declares a political principle and then guarantees a substantive right. The term “the people” is in juxtaposition to the government, federal or State. Only individuals have “rights,” while the United States and the States have “powers.”

Strong language to follow…

When analyzed closely, the “collective rights” reading of the Second Amendment is simply implausible.

Still, the headline is Vice President Cheney's signature. Wow.

RELATED LINKS: For a look at reviews of other terrific briefs filed at SCOTUS in support of Heller, see:
Heller’s Friends: Claremont Institute and the Scholars
The Heller Posse: A Roundup of Briefs: The NRA
Heller: The Good Guys Shoot Back, With Effect
On Heller: Shot in the Back by the Bush DOJ

For even more on the case and the subject, click here.

Worse comes to worst, he could take 3-4 of them pigeon hunting in Wyoming.

Heller's Friends: Claremont Institute and the Scholars

I've had the opportunity to personally thank Bill Buckley for revolutionizing the conservative movement when he added his incredible intellectual weight to the discussions that we have across all the political issues with which we grapple. Bill led the charge that changed the mass perception of the lingua freedom of conservatism from "redneck" to logic based on fundamental principles of human behavior and values.

Today, similar appreciation is due those who labor in the fields of fundamental constitutional rights. Thanks to the efforts of scores, in America's future millions of us will be more like citizens and less like subjects than would otherwise be the case.

Among those are the Criminologists, Social Scientists, Other Distinguished Scholars and the Claremont Institute who today filed as amici curiae in District of Columbia vs. Heller.

As I've written in The Heller Posse: A Roundup of Briefs: The NRA and Heller: The Good Guys Shoot Back, With Effect,

D. C. vs. Heller has been called the most significant constitutional case of the year. It's easily that. It is also the most important Second Amendment case ever.

Marc Ayers, Counsel of Record, and Don Kates have led a team of 19 distinguished authors and professors to create a treasure trove of Second Amendment facts and quantitative data, while punching gaping holes—irreparable holes—in some of the studies used to support the District's case.

Win, lose or draw on Heller, and I believe that SCOTUS will invigorate the Second Amendment, the arguments that these advocates are building will be useful for decades to come.

I'm reminded of the recent comment by a District supporter on how little case law there is on point. The rejoinder—I wish I could remember whose—was, it took 200 years until you guys really stepped in it. Now our job is to make you wish you hadn't!

I love it when they start strong. Here's a first paragraph truth talking about the District and describing the three laws under discussion as a

30-year social experiment with handgun prohibition

They follow up with this, to which I've added the emphasis, just to point out the lawyerly equivalent of "pants on fire."

The District and its amici assert that the District’s gun bans actually reduced violent crime notwithstanding the increased crime rates. However, the studies advanced in support this position are fundamentally flawed and reach conclusions favorable to the District only through questionable selection of data and extremely unorthodox methodologies—such as ignoring large population changes, and counting only raw numbers of homicides (which incorrectly included justifiable homicides as well as murders) rather than per capita murder rates.

Contrary to the assertions of the District and its amici, there is simply no persuasive evidence that the District’s handgun ban has reduced violent crime. Indeed, if there is anything to be discerned from the state of affairs in the District, it is that the handgun ban has made things worse, as murder and other violent crime has skyrocketed. Over the five pre-ban years the murder rate fell from 37 to 27 per 100,000 population. See Appendix at 3a (FBI data on the District’s murder rates since 19602)). In the five post-ban years the murder rate rose to 35. Averaging the rates over the 40 years surrounding the bans yields a pre-ban DC rate (1960-76) of 24.6 murders. The average for the post-ban years is nearly double: 47.4 murders per 100,000 population. The year before the bans (1976), the District’s murder rate was 27 per 100,000 population; after 15 years under the bans it had tripled to 80.22 per 100,000 (1991).

Then, in an early signal that this is a hardball contest, they bring the point home, what the 30 years of experiment has wrought.

In 2003 the Secretary of Defense noted that the District’s murder rate was higher than Baghdad’s.

Sort of like teaching in elementary school, make the point as hard and from as many directions as possible

In 2006, even after a decade of drops in the murder rate, the District’s murder rate “was more than five times higher than the national average, and more than double the rate in comparably sized cities.”

Before the challenged prohibitions, the District’s murder rate was declining, and by 1976 had fallen to the 15th highest among the 50 largest American cities.

Most of us have heard the murder capital language. I didn't know that D.C. was so nearly normal prior to 1976.

The authors point out serious flaws in a study used by D.C.'s team to support the argument that its gun laws work. Among other indications of putting a thumb on the scale, the Loftin study compared all homicides before and after the D.C. ban. Doing so adds justifiable self-defense uses (which occurred prior to the ban but not after) to criminal uses, which occurred both before and after. This sleight of hand artificially increased the pre-ban number and minimized the apparent increase in criminal homicides, which would otherwise be derogatory to the District’s case.

In fact, the authors point out that the Loftin study was so flawed that the National Academy of Sciences issued a finding that there is no conclusive evidence with the respect to the impact of such bans on crime and violence.

The reality is that one’s chance of being murdered in the District has not dropped, but has continually gone up following the enactment of the gun ban. In only one of the 30 post-ban years has the District’s murder rate been lower than its pre-ban 1976 rate.

Like most who will read this, I've tried to stay pretty informed about the area over the years. Still, there are things I didn’t know. I know of the Kellerman studies butI did not know how the baselines were created, as seen in the central quotation, here

The District and its amici claim that merely living in a house with a gun triples the chance of becoming a homicide victim, citing Arthur L. Kellermann, et al., Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home, 329 New Eng. J. Med. 1084 (1993). Yet, though the Kellermann study analyzed over 400 homicides, “the authors did not document a single case in which the victim was killed with a gun kept in the victim’s home.” Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control 245 (1997). Apparently in over 95% of the cases the gun was brought to the home by the killer.

Noting these problems with the Kellermann study, the National Academy of Sciences found that the Kellermann conclusions are not tenable.

More guns, more crime? No, not exactly. Again, emphasis added.

The primary pillar of the argument that gun prohibition produces good results is the notion that “more guns equals more murder.” However, this notion is demonstrably untrue.

To counter such evidence, the District and its amici cite a study by Mark Duggan for the proposition that “increases in gun ownership lead to increases in the number of homicides.” However, the Duggan study is fundamentally flawed, as are these conclusions. The Duggan study was not based on actual data about gun distribution evidence. That is, Duggan never measured whether any city had more guns or less guns. Instead, his study is based solely on the circulation of one magazine, Guns & Ammo.

I know Guns & Ammo. I like Guns & Ammo. I get Guns & Ammo. But I know that the magazine Guns & Ammo is not a gun! How on earth does a credible researcher turn a magazine's subscription list—which, by the by, turned out to have been manipulated by between 5% and 20% in various cities—into guns? For that matter, how did a D.C. lawyer decide to insert such crap into his case?

While many of us have known that England has suffered simultaneously with its tightening regulations, seeing the change over just five years is stark.

Specifically, the number of deaths and injuries from gun crime in England and Wales increased 340 percent in the seven years from 1998 to 2005.

In the 1950s, the term The Big Lie was most often directed at communists and communist sympathizers, who operated under the theory that a lie repeated often enough would become the perceived truth. Then there's this, again emphasis added:

Apparently for the first time, the District now claims that its residents may keep long guns for defense in the home. This assertion was not made below where it would have been subject to discovery. Discovery would have revealed that the District has never (so far as we can find) announced this purported exception either to the public or to its police. We leave to the Brief of Amicus Curiae Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (the “Errors Brief”), the refutation of this newly asserted exception. We note, however, that the District has made no attempt to outline what such an exception would entail.

The Errors Brief. Don't you just love how they carved up the tasks? I can't wait to read that one! Continuing...

Consider at least seven different forms which such a defense might take:

a) Despite the challenged ordinances, there is an implicit self-defense exception allowing a District resident to keep an un-trigger locked handgun loaded and assembled in her night stand; or

b) Despite those ordinances there is an implicit exception allowing a District resident to keep an un-trigger-locked shotgun assembled and loaded by her bedside17; or

c) There is an implicit exception allowing a woman who has been stalked, raped, or threatened with death by her ex-husband or someone else to keep an un-trigger locked handgun loaded and assembled in her night stand for selfdefense; or

d) There is an implicit exception allowing a woman who has been stalked, raped, or threatened with death by her ex-husband or someone else to keep an un-trigger-locked shotgun assembled and loaded for self-defense by her bedside; or

e) The obverse of (a)—(d): yes, it was illegal for her to have a handgun or a loaded shotgun, but now that she has shot an intruder with it, that shooting gives her a defense to prosecution for the gun law violations; or

f) There is an implicit exception allowing a woman who has been stalked raped or threatened by her ex-husband or someone else to assemble, load and unlock her shotgun if she spies him lurking outside her home; or

g) When a woman is attacked by a knifewielding attacker in her home there is an implicit exception allowing her to go and assemble, load and unlock her shotgun.

Can't you just imagine this line coming as a question from Justice Scalia? How about future civil suits against the District by victims of violent crime who point out to future juries the logic of the District's legal position.

They make the point that there are alternatives to banning guns. By the way, this is the first time I've seen any credible number in print for the number of citizens licensed to carry. Another valuable nugget for future debates.

… [O]ver the past decade 48 states have issued permits to carry concealed handguns for lawful protection to about five million Americans; most of those states have been issuing under statutorily standardized criteria by which an adult with a clean record and safety training can obtain a permit.

Closing the barn door with research from the Justices' employer:

Confirming this fact are two recent general studies of gun control. In 2005, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation based on review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and some empirical research of its own. Wellford, et al., Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review, supra, at 98. The Academy could not identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide or gun accidents. The same conclusion was reached in a 2003 evaluation by the Centers for Disease Control’s then-extant studies.

And hit it one more time, between the eyes. The District's mouth is larger than its facts and the rhetoric is a killer.

In this case, the facts simply do not fit the rhetoric behind the District’s gun ban. Such bans do not produce good results. Rather, such bans irrationally strip law-abiding citizens of the most effective means of defending themselves and their loved ones—and, if the evidence indicates anything, it is that criminals take full advantage.

Great arguments and great writing make for persuasion. These guys are in the X-ring. Their brief is here and well worth reading.

I believe Heller will prevail. If not, these are the arguments our children will see in the future. It will not be like Miller, where our team didn't show.