Federal Judge Rules Chicago Ban on Handgun Sales Unconstitutional

Chicago Sun Times

Though Chang stayed his ruling to give the city a chance to appeal — and said a less restrictive ordinance than the unconstitutional blanket ban could yet pass muster — lawyers for the Illinois Association of Firearm Retailers were quick to predict that neighborhood gun stores could now open before the end of 2014.

The ruling is the latest in a series of legal blows to the city’s efforts to restrict gun ownership since the Supreme Court in 2010 ruled Chicago’s handgun ban unconstitutional.

City Hall attorneys had argued that the gun sale ban makes it harder for criminals to get their hands on weapons.

Chang agreed the city had a “fundamental duty” to protect its citizens and acknowledged that “the stark reality facing the City each year is thousands of shooting victims and hundreds of murders committed with a gun.”

But he wrote that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense “must also include the right to acquire a firearm.”

“If all cities and municipalities can prohibit gun sales and transfers within their own borders, then all gun sales and transfers may be banned across a wide swath of the country if this principle is carried forward to its natural conclusion,” he added.

ssgmarkcr who sent me the link had this to say:

    Most interesting is that Judge Chang was nominated as a federal judge by President Obama in 2010.  I find it encouraging that this potentially shows that a judge is showing independent thought in deciding court cases and not feeling bound or beholding to who appointed him.

Philly City Council Approves Ordinance to Ban 3-D Printed Guns

Philly Councilman Kenyatta Johnson.

Guns dot com

The Philadelphia City Council last week unanimously approved an ordinance banning residents from manufacturing 3-D printed guns.

While guns manufactured from 3-D printers do not pose a significant threat to public safety, mainly because (a) they’re cost prohibitive, one has to first purchase a 3-D printer which will run no less than $1,500, and then buy materials to make one and (b) they’re fragile, the average lifespan of a 3-D printed gun is only a handful of rounds, the council felt it necessary to get ahead of the curve, so to speak.

‘It’s all pre-emptive,’ a spokesman for councilman Kenyatta Johnson, who sponsored the ordinance, toldPhilly Magazine. ‘It’s just based upon Internet stuff out there.’

By “Internet stuff” one can assume he is referring to “The Liberator,” the 3-D printable gun that was designed by Cody Wilson of Defense Distributed, a nonprofit, pro-Second Amendment civil liberty group based in Texas.

Maryland Weapons Purchases Soar in Anticipation of New Laws

Tea Party dot Org

This year, Maryland passed strict gun-control legislation. In response, residents have flooded the state police with applications to purchase weapons, before the new law takes effect. Through August, more than 85,000 residents have made new requests to purchase firearms. This is almost double the amount who sought buy guns in all of 2011.

The Maryland law, pushed through by Democrat Gov. Martin O’Malley and a Democrat legislature, bans 45 types of “assault weapons” and limits ammunition magazines to a maximum of ten rounds. Possessing these weapons and magazines would be legal, however, if purchased before the law’s October 1 effective date. Residents in Maryland have responded to this incentive by stock-piling guns.

Something's wrong here. Every time there's a new gun law going into effect, especially if it's to make possession of certain guns illegal, gun sales soar beforehand. This obviously diminishes whatever good the new law will do.  In some cases the benefits of the new law will never catch up with the increased sales that took place leading up to the implementation of the law.

The solution is obvious. Restrictions on certain kinds of guns and accessories cannot allow the grandfather clause.  If something is so bad that it has to be outlawed, what sense does it make to allow those who already possess it to continue doing so? 

Voluntary surrender of outlawed weapons must accompany any new laws prohibiting their possession. This is exactly what Chris Christie did not want to do with the .50 caliber sniper rifles, but at least he didn't outlaw them with a grandfather clause built in.

What's your opinion?  please leave a comment.

Obama Disarming America

The associations with Hitler and Mao are just stupid.  The claim that veterans with PTSD who've received the famous letters from the VA indicates a total ban on guns is coming, is just stupid.

What do you think?

The Ballard Brothers

Venezuela Bans Private Gun Ownership

BBS reports

Until now, anyone with a gun permit could buy arms from a private company.

Under the new law, only the army, police and certain groups like security companies will be able to buy arms from the state-owned weapons manufacturer and importer.

The ban is the latest attempt by the government to improve security and cut crime ahead of elections in October

Venezuela saw more than 18,000 murders last year and the capital, Caracas, is thought to be one of the most dangerous cities in Latin America.

This should be interesting. What do you think?

Please leave a comment.

Minnesota State Supreme Court Uphold Gun Ban

It looks like the Minnesota Supreme Court agrees with MikeB about certain behavior being a bar to further legal gun ownership.

From MPR / Bob Collins:

Minnesota court upholds gun ban

Posted at 12:16 PM on December 5, 2011 by Bob Collins (4 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

A lifetime ban on handgun ownership by people who have committed a crime of violence does not violate the Constitution, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has ruled.
The court ruled today in the case of Andrew Craig, who was stopped by Mounds View police on suspicion of domestic assault in 2009. Police found a gun in the car, which he claimed was put in his backpack by his girlfriend. Craig had previously been convicted of possession of drugs, which Minnesota considers a crime of violence.
Craig appealed the ban on gun ownership but the court said "... the Supreme Court did not explicitly hold that the Second Amendment right is a fundamental right, so that restrictions on this right are subject to a strict-scrutiny standard of review."
The court said Minnesota law, which declares "a fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms," does not bolster Craig's appeal because the 2003 concealed carry law recognizes persons the Legislature "has deemed ineligible to possess a firearm."
Judge Natalie Hudson said protecting the public from offenders who use guns is "an important governmental objective."
Although the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia's handgun ban (the Heller case) in 2008, Judge Hudson said that case made clear that the right to own a gun "is held by 'law-abiding, responsible citizens.'"
"A person convicted of a felony, particular one that is listed as a 'crime of violence' ... has demonstrated that he or she is not a law-abiding, responsible citizen," she wrote.

Bullet-Proof Blackberry

Local ABC news reports on a freakish incident in which a woman almost lost her life in another accidental shooting.

The boyfriend went to put on his coat and accidentally discharged the handgun he had.

Modern day technology literally saved an Ohio woman's life. Police in Butler Township say a 22 year old woman and her boyfriend were drinking at a restaurant. The boyfriend went to put on his coat and accidentally discharged the handgun he had.

The bullet hit the woman's Blackberry that she had in her pocket. Captain Carl Bush says, "Very lucky for her is that in her pants pocket, or jeans pocket, she had her Blackberry. And the Blackberry stopped the bullet. Drinking and guns definitely do not go together."

The woman only got a bruise, but her boyfriend is facing a third-degree felony for bringing a gun into a place that sells liquor. The woman's Blackberry did not survive the bullet damage.

Because of one stupid incident like this, do I think no one shoud be allowed to carry guns? You betcha. Do I think that a guy who does something like this once should lose his right to own guns forever? You betcha. Do I want to be able to go to a restaurant without wondering if the guy at the next table knows how to handle his gun? You betcha.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Gun Laws in Brazil

Wikipedia, the oft disparaged source of information, has the following. Wikipedia haters should notice the many footnotes and citations to other more respectable sources.

Because of gun politics in Brazil, all firearms are required to be registered with the state; the minimum age for ownership is 25 and although it is legal to carry a gun outside a residence, extremely severe restrictions were made by the federal government since 2002 making it virtually impossible to obtain a carry permit. To legally own a gun, the owner must pay a tax every three years to register the gun, and registration can be done via the Internet or in person with the Federal Police. Until the end of the 2008, unregistered guns could be legalized for free. The total number of firearms in Brazil is thought to be around 17 million with 9 million of those being unregistered.

Some 39,000 people died in 2003 due to gun-related injuries nationwide. In 2004, the number was 36,000. Although Brazil has 100 million fewer citizens than the United States, and more restrictive gun laws, there are 25 percent more gun deaths; other sources indicate that homicide rates due to guns are approximately four times higher than the rate in the United States. Brazil has the second largest arms industry in the Western Hemisphere. Approximately 80 percent of the weapons manufactured in Brazil are exported, mostly to neighboring countries; many of these weapons are then smuggled back into Brazil. Some firearms in Brazil come from police and military arsenals, having either been "stolen or sold by corrupt soldiers and officers."

It certainly sounds like licensing and registration are not working in Brazil. What do you think? Is it possible the high rate of gun violence is due to other factors and if the strict gun laws were removed the violence would be worse? Is that possible?

Could it be that like Canada, the problem is improper or ineffective administration of the licensing and registration program? Could it be done better in order to achieve the desired results?

Again from Wikipedia one of the best descriptions of the gun debate.

The issue of gun law has become a political and/or controversial issue in many societies. There are many differing views on how gun laws should be set up in a society. A typical disagreement is over whether guns should be prohibited in the interest of public safety, or whether citizen gun ownership improves safety and should be allowed. This debate is fueled by black market sales of firearms, illegal firearm manufacturing, cross border purchases, witness intimidation, self defense as a right, use of deadly force in self defense, victims rights, accidental shootings, use of firearms in killing sprees, criminal use of firearms originally purchased legally, use of stolen firearms by criminals, hunting vs. self defense use, alternatives to firearms, etc.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Walla Walla Clerk Shot

Seattlepi.com reports on an interesting shooting which took place during a robbery.

WALLA WALLA, Wash. -- A clerk who was shot in the back during a robbery at a convenience store in Walla Walla is expected to recover after surgery.

Police say the 35-year-old clerk didn't believe the gun was real, grabbed at it, and was shot during the struggle.

Police have surveillance video of the Friday night holdup as they look for the robber who fled the PDQ store with a small amount of cash. His face was covered and he wore a dark coat.

How do you think the store clerk could have mistaken the gun for a fake? It reminds me of the Colored Gun Ban in New York City which was roundly mocked by the pro-gun guys who tend to mock any gun legislation regardless of how sensible.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Gun Banning in the Philippines

The New York Times reports on the gun ban which has been implemented in the Philippines.

A nationwide gun ban took effect Sunday in the Philippines to stave off any increase in political violence as elections draw closer, officials said.

Elections in the Philippines are almost always bloody, mainly because of the dominance of political dynasties, the presence of nearly 70 private armies and militias and the proliferation of what are called “loose firearms” — mostly unlicensed and unregistered weapons.

But what does it actually mean when they say "gun ban?" As it turns out, it simply means you have to leave your guns at home, that's all. It's certainly nothing nearly as dramatic as a gun confiscation.

What's interesting is they think it's necessary. They think, based on past experience, that the folks who own guns cannot be trusted with them during the volatile election period. That's pretty much the way gun control people in America feel about concealed carry permit holders.

But, in all fairness, maybe your average gun owner in the Philippines is much more dangerous and untrustworthy than his American counterpart.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Gun Confiscation in Utah

The Salt Lake Tribune ran a fascinating story about the fears some of the gun owners are facing in the State of Utah.

Utah gun-rights defenders are sounding an alarm about a proposed ethics-reform ballot initiative that never mentions guns but, they believe, could lead to a gun registry for lawmakers.

At issue in the Utahns for Ethical Government proposal is a conflicts-of-interest section that would require legislators to disclose property that could be subject to government regulation. To vigilant gun owners, that's code for a gun registry because few objects are more regulated, said Charles Hardy, public policy director for the Gun Owners of Utah (GOUtah!).

The Utah gun owners have been solicited by e-mail to reject the petition.

An attorney who helped draft the initiative asserted the gun-registry interpretation is absurd. "They said that with a straight face?" asked Utahns for Ethical Government attorney David Irvine. "If there are people out there doing that, I cannot imagine the world of paranoia in which they operate."

Irvine goes on to explain that the ethics commission could only have an interest in property that carries a potential financial entanglement. An example, he said, might be real estate that a lawmaker conceivably could sell to the Utah Department of Transportation for a highway right of way. The gun owners' reaction seems even more paranoid and absurd than the claims that health care reform might end up hurting them. At least that one had some vague basis in reality. There has been talk about considering guns in the home as a health risk.

What's your opinion? Are gun owners sometimes a little paranoid? Do they sometimes read too much into things seeing opposition were none exist?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Munir Hussain

The Times Online reports on a fascinating case in Great Britain.

A businessman who fought off knife-wielding thugs after his family were threatened has been jailed for 30 months.

The case prompted renewed debate over the level of force that house-holders can use against raiders.

Munir Hussain, chairman of the Asian Business Council, was praised by a judge for his “courage” in defending his wife and three children from an attack — but then jailed for the violence of his response. One of his attackers was spared a jail sentence.

I don't know about you, but I find those opening paragraphs a bit misleading. Maybe that's why FatWhiteMan used this case as an example of how bad things are in England.

Actually, what happened is Mr. Hussain, quite courageously, got the intruders to flee the house. Then he and his brother and some other neighbors gave chase, caught one of them and beat him nearly to death with bats and metal pipes. The attacker who "was spared a jail sentence" is the one who'd had his brains bashed in and was incapable of going to court.

This is something which although very understandable, has nothing to do with protecting one's family or defending one's property. This is a case of taking the law into one's own hands and meting out justice, vigilante-style. The prosecution called it a "revenge attack."

Another thing illustrated by this case is one of the major problems with people arming themselves for home defense. In a dangerous situation when facing what could be lethal threat it is next to impossible to react properly. What Mr. Hussain did was a grievous departure from what is acceptable, but imagine how many lesser examples there are, especially the ones in which the gun owner shoots prematurely or unnecessarily. These dreadful examples must far outnumber the clean legitimate ones. It's plain common sense.

Don't miss Laci's comments here.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

A Different Perspective on Heller

The Washington Times published an article suggesting that the Heller decision and the upcoming McDonald case might not be the victories for gun rights they appear to be.

Many have heard about the historic gun rights case going to the Supreme Court. Fewer have heard that this is also a major case for businesses and family values. It could lead to anything from court-ordered Obamacare to same-sex marriage. This is the biggest case of the year, and everyone has a stake in it.

On March 2, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in McDonald v. City of Chicago. It is a gun rights case, challenging Chicago's categorical ban on handguns. The ban is essentially identical to the D.C. gun ban that was struck down by the Supreme Court in the 2008 case D.C. v. Heller, in which the court held that an absolute ban in the federal city violates the Second Amendment.

The question in this case is whether the Second Amendment applies to cities and states as it does to the federal government. The Bill of Rights applies only against actions of the federal government. Most of the Bill of Rights has since been applied to the states (or "incorporated," to use the legal term) by the Fourteenth Amendment. The question in McDonald is whether the right to keep and bear arms is incorporated against the states.

"Incorporated" is the word used so often by pro-gun folks, I think to give the impression that they're hip to legal terms. Some of them may be, but they always use this word in a way that sounds like it would decrease federal control in favor of the states and cities. They always use it to say that it increases freedom and rights. But does it?

Here's what Laci says.

I have always held that Heller was tyranny in the guise of the Second Amendment since the DC gun law was locally enacted, yet non-DC citizens used the court system to overturn a law they didn't like. This was true even though the DC law was popular amongst DC residents.

I don't think that the people who hope McDonald will find that the right will be incorporated against the States realise the implication. Instead, they prefer to hear something that matches their view of the world: the Second Amendment is incorporated against the States.

Facially, that is a ridiculous proposition since the Second Amendment was designed to protect state sovereignty (that is State's militias) against Federal power (the US Army). The fact that this irony is not perceived only shows how the Second Amendment has been perverted by special interests.

What's your opinion? Isn't this incorporation business a way of increasing federal control over the states? Are the gun control folks so short-sighted they fail to see the problem with this? Doesn't it do just the opposite of what they always claim they want?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.