The False Equivalence Between Cars and Guns


A comment today about one of the suggestions being made by advocates of more stringent control of guns in the United States.Let's Treat Guns Like Cars

Simply put, the idea is that we should license gun owners the same way we license drivers of motor vehicles and that we should register guns the same way we register vehicles. The argument in favor of this suggestion is, essentially, that since it is acceptable that we register vehicles and license drivers for public safety, it should acceptable to register guns and license gun owners for public safety.

The comparison between cars and guns, however, exemplifies two forms of classic logical fallacy, false equivalence and false analogy.

The reason, of course, is that … despite the way the argument is put in the gun context … we do NOT register all cars … nor do we require all drivers to have licenses.

What? “Of course we do”, you say.

No, we don’t.

What we actually do is to require registration of all vehicles that are to be operated on public roads or in publically-owned off-road venues. And what we actually do is to require anyone who wants to drive on a public road or in a publically-owned off-road venue to have a driver’s license.

On the other hand, if a vehicle is not going to be operated on public roads or in a publically-owned off-road venue and is to be driven only on the owner’s private property, it does not have to be registered. In California, this is called “Planned Non-Operation” or “PNO”, which is described in this DMV online publication:

California Department of Motor Vehicleshttps://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffvr01/

It says:

PNO means that the vehicle will not be driven, towed, stored, or parked on public roads or highways for the entire registration year.

Similarly, any person who does not intend to operate a motor vehicle on a public highway or in publically-owned off-road venue is not required to have a drivers license. Individuals in California who do not have drivers licenses MAY (but are not required to) obtain a California ID card.

See this California DMV online publication for the ID card requirements:

California Department of Motor Vehicleshttps://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/idinfo/idcard

It describes the ID card as follows:

DMV issues ID cards to persons of any age. The ID card looks like a driver license, but is used for identification purposes only. A regular ID card is valid for six years, and a senior citizen ID card is valid for 10 years. To qualify for a senior citizen ID card, you must be age 62 or older.

In short, cars and guns are not equivalent; car owners and gun owners are not equivalent; and the analogy between cars and guns in this regard is false.

A true equivalence between cars and guns would be that the state should require anyone who wants to carry a gun in public to have a license … and that any gun which is going to be carried in public has to be registered.

On the other hand, if a person is going to own a gun, but will keep it only at home or otherwise only on his private property, there should be no requirement to either register the gun or have a license to own it.

THAT would be consistent with the way we treat motor vehicles and their drivers.

———-

For an interesting and entertaining alternative view of this issue, see the post “We Need to Regulate Cars the Way We Regulate Guns” on Mike Z. Williamson’s blog “The Sacred Cow Slaughterhouse”:

The Sacred Cow Slaughterhouse header

http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/index.php?itemid=227

This blog is interesting because it shows what we would have to do to buy cars if they were subject to all of the requirements already in place with respect to guns … and demonstrates quite clearly that the purchase and use of guns is already much more heavily-regulated than the purchase and operation of cars.

—–oooooOOOOOooooo—–

FLA 78

Advertisements

New California Criminal Laws for 2016


The California state legislature enacted 807 new laws during the 2015 legislative session. Several of them addressed criminal law issues which might be of interest, particularly to attorneys who practice criminal law.

 

NEW CRIMINAL LAWS

Photographing and video recording cops in public

Video recording of police officers by private citizens has become somewhat of a contentious issue for some cops. Officers have been known to order citizens to stop … or to have seized the recording device … or even to arrest the recording individual for interfering with the performance of police duties.

This year, the California legislature brought clarity to this situation, making it clear that such recording in a public place is not, in and of itself, a violation of the law.

To accomplish this, the legislature amended two Penal Code sections, 69 and 148. The former makes it a crime to deter or prevent an officer from performing his duties and the latter makes it a crime willfully resist, delay, or obstruct a peace officer in the performance of his duties.

Section 69 was amended to add subdivision (b), which provides:

“The fact that a person takes a photograph or makes an audio or video recording of an executive officer, while the officer is in a public place or the person taking the photograph or making the recording is in a place he or she has the right to be, does not constitute, in and of itself, a violation of subdivision (a).”

Section 148 was amended to add subdivision (g), which provides:

“The fact that a person takes a photograph or makes an audio or video recording of a public officer or peace officer, while the officer is in a public place or the person taking the photograph or making the recording is in a place he or she has the right to be, does not constitute, in and of itself, a violation of subdivision (a), nor does it constitute reasonable suspicion to detain the person or probable cause to arrest the person.”

Biking to the music with ear buds

California law previously prohibited wearing any headset that covered both ears while driving a vehicle or riding on a bicycle.  This year, the law — Vehicle Code section 27400 — was amended to, essentially, ban ear buds while driving or riding a bicycle.

With certain exceptions (such as persons operating authorized emergency vehicles and individuals wearing hearing aids), the law now provides:

 “A person operating a motor vehicle or bicycle may not wear a headset covering, earplugs in, or earphones covering, resting on, or inserted in, both ears.”

BB Guns in public

When I was a kid growing up on Long Island, I often carried my BB rifle or .22 caliber pellet gun around the neighborhood, plinking away with them. These days, of course, carrying around a realistic-looking BB gun can get you killed.

In any effort to reduce the likelihood of such a tragic event happening in California, several provisions of law relating to BB, pellet, paintball and airsoft guns were changed this year.

Penal Code section 20165 previously excluded all BB guns from the existing prohibition on “imitation firearms”. Under the new law, BB, pellet, paintball and airsoft guns are considered “imitation firearms” and therefore illegal unless they meet specified requirements, the full details of which are available here:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB199

Among the exceptions are the color requirements designed to make these recreational guns readily identifiable as non-lethal. New Penal Code section 16700, subdivision (b)(5), provides that these guns are not considered “imitation firearms” when they consist of:

“A device where the entire exterior surface of the device is white, bright red, bright orange, bright yellow, bright green, bright blue, bright pink, or bright purple, either singly or as the predominant color in combination with other colors in any pattern, or where the entire device is constructed of transparent or translucent materials which permits unmistakable observation of the device’s complete contents.”

Gun violence restraining orders

Numerous and substantial changes were made to the laws regarding gun violence restraining orders. The full details of the changes, which were enacted by Assembly Bill 1014, are here:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB1014

Major provisions of the bill authorize courts to:

Issue a temporary emergency gun violence restraining order if the court finds that there is reasonable cause to believe that the subject of the petition poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm and that the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to himself, herself, or another.

Issue an ex parte gun violence restraining order prohibiting the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition when it is shown that there is a substantial likelihood that the subject of the petition poses a significant danger of harm to himself, herself, or another in the near future by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm and that the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to himself, herself, or another.

Issue a gun violence restraining order prohibiting the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition for a period of one year when there is clear and convincing evidence that the subject of the petition, or a person subject to an ex parte gun violence restraining order, as applicable, poses a significant danger of personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm and that the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to himself, herself, or another.

The new law authorizes the renewal of the order for additional one-year periods and permits the restrained person to request one hearing to terminate the order during the effective period of the initial order or each renewal period.

The new law requires courts, upon issuance of gun violence restraining orders, to order the restrained person to surrender to the local law enforcement agency all firearms and ammunition in his or her custody or control, or which he or she possesses or owns and requires the local law enforcement agency to retain custody of the firearm or firearms and ammunition for the duration of a gun violence restraining order.

To help protect individuals against false claims in applications for gun violence restraining orders, the new law makes it a misdemeanor for anyone to file a petition for an ex parte gun violence restraining order or a gun violence restraining order issued after notice and a hearing, knowing the information in the petition to be false or with the intent to harass the person who is the subject of the requested order.

Finally, the new law also provides that a person who owns or possesses a firearm or ammunition with the knowledge that he or she is prohibited from doing so by a gun violence restraining order is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be prohibited from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition for a 5-year period, commencing upon the expiration of the existing gun violence restraining order.

CCW on school grounds

The rules governing the carrying of licensed concealed weapons on or near school grounds (Penal Code sections 626.9 & 30310) were changed this year.

The changes allow the holder of a valid license to now carry a concealed firearm to carry a firearm in an area that is within 1,000 feet of, but not on the grounds of, a public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12.

On the other hand, the changes deleted the exemptions that previously allowed a person holding a valid license to carry a concealed firearm to bring or possess a firearm on the campus of a university or college and that previously allowed a person to carry ammunition or reloaded ammunition onto school grounds if the person is licensed to carry a concealed firearm.

The new law did create an additional authorization for a person to carry ammunition or reloaded ammunition onto school grounds if it is in a motor vehicle at all times and is within a locked container or within the locked trunk of the vehicle.

Transporting dope

The definition of “transporting” controlled substances within the meaning of Health & Safety Code sections 11360, 11379.5 and 11391 was changed to mean “to transport for sale”.

The changes to these code sections, which relate to the transportation of marijuana, pcp and psychedelic mushrooms, mean that a person who is transporting those substances for personal use, rather than for sale, can be charged only with possession of, rather than the more serious charge of transporting, the proscribed substances.

Custodial battery (alternative felony-misdemeanor)

Section 243.15 was added to the California Penal Code, providing that:

“Every person confined in, sentenced to, or serving a sentence in, a city or county jail, industrial farm, or industrial road camp in this state, who commits a battery upon the person of any individual who is not himself or herself a person confined or sentenced therein, is guilty of a public offense and is subject to punishment by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or in a county jail for not more than one year.”

Not that such a battery ever was a good idea, now the consequences of committing one are potentially even more severe.

Credit for time served against fines

The value of each day spent in jail and for which a defendant is entitled to credit against any imposed fine, was increased from $30 per day to $125 per day. (Penal Code section 1205)

Dismissal of traffic tickets

Want to get out of a traffic ticket? Well, the legislature added a new way this year. In the past, any citation or misdemeanor traffic offenses committed by a person sentenced to state prison could no longer be prosecuted.

Now, that restriction also applies to anyone sentenced to a county jail pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h), which provides for so-called “realignment” county jail sentences.

So, if you have a citation or misdemeanor traffic offense pending and you get sentenced to county jail under section 1170, subdivision (h), as an alternative to being sent to prison, will be relieved of prosecution for those traffic offenses.

Felony traffic offenses are not affected by the change in the law and can still be prosecuted, even for individuals sentenced to prison or county jail under the realignment statute.

 

NEW LAWS RELATING TO THE PROSECUTION

AND DEFENSE OF CRIMINAL CASES

Immigration consequences

Penal Code sections 1016.2 & 1016.3 were added this year, addressing how both prosecutors and defense counsel deal with the immigration consequences of guilty pleas in criminal cases.

 The new laws require that defense counsel provide to their clients accurate and affirmative advice about the immigration consequences of any proposed disposition of the client’s case and that prosecutors, “in the interests of justice … shall consider the avoidance of adverse immigration consequences in the plea negotiation process as one factor in an effort to reach a just resolution”.

Thus, the lawyers on both sides of criminal cases involving individuals who may be subject to immigration consequences as a result of their prosecution must take those potential consequences into consideration as part of the plea bargaining process.

Presumably, this will also mean that courts will be inquiring of defendants entering guilty pleas whether or not their lawyers have advised them of the potential immigration consequences. One more thing for defense counsel to keep in mind.

Prosecutorial misconduct (withholding evidence)

And one more thing for prosecutors to keep in mind (though the ethical ones always have and will not be effected in any way by this change):

Section 1424.5 was added to the Penal Code … because of the significance of this provision, here it is in full:

Penal Code section 1424.5

“(a) (1) Upon receiving information that a prosecuting attorney may have deliberately and intentionally withheld relevant or material exculpatory evidence or information in violation of law, a court may make a finding, supported by clear and convincing evidence, that a violation occurred. If the court finds such a violation, the court shall inform the State Bar of California of that violation if the prosecuting attorney acted in bad faith and the impact of the withholding contributed to a guilty verdict, guilty or nolo contendere plea, or, if identified before conclusion of trial, seriously limited the ability of a defendant to present a defense.

“(2) A court may hold a hearing to consider whether a violation occurred pursuant to paragraph (1).

“(b) (1) If a court finds, pursuant to subdivision (a), that a violation occurred in bad faith, the court may disqualify an individual prosecuting attorney from a case.

“(2) Upon a determination by a court to disqualify an individual prosecuting attorney pursuant to paragraph (1), the defendant or his or her counsel may file and serve a notice of a motion pursuant to Section 1424 to disqualify the prosecuting attorney’s office if there is sufficient evidence that other employees of the prosecuting attorney’s office knowingly and in bad faith participated in or sanctioned the intentional withholding of the relevant or material exculpatory evidence or information and that withholding is part of a pattern and practice of violations.

“(c) This section does not limit the authority or discretion of, or any requirement placed upon, the court or other individuals to make reports to the State Bar of California regarding the same conduct, or otherwise limit other available legal authority, requirements, remedies, or actions.”

In a related provision, subdivision (a)(5) was added to Business & Professions Code section 6068.7, providing:

“(5) A violation described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 1424.5 of the Penal Code by a prosecuting attorney, if the court finds that the prosecuting attorney acted in bad faith and the impact of the violation contributed to a guilty verdict, guilty or nolo contendere plea, or, if identified before conclusion of trial, seriously limited the ability of a defendant to present a defense.”

These provisions add serious consequences to the withholding by prosecutors of relevant or material exculpatory evidence or information in any criminal case.

—–oooOOOooo—–

FLA 75

Trashing the Constitution on HBO: Bill Maher “Wrong Again, Wrong Again.”


_____

Just as Michael Bloomberg did recently …

https://freelegaladvice.wordpress.com/2013/03/31/trashing-the-constitution-in-new-york-city/

… Bill Maher has gone from Just Plain Incorrect …

https://freelegaladvice.wordpress.com/2013/04/07/bill-maher-just-plain-incorrect/

… to falling off the edge of the political table.

Friday night, April 12, 2013, on his HBO television show “Real Time”, Maher was discussing gun control with his guest panel.  After castigating “liberals” for what he perceived as their “weakness” in the gun control debate, Maher, not exactly making an insightful or clever  addition to the conversation, said:

“Everyone on the left is so afraid to say what should be said.  Which is, the Second Amendment is bullshit.”

http://www.guns.com/2013/04/13/bill-maher-the-second-amendment-is-bullshit-video/

Bill Maher 041213

Maybe so, though I disagree.  But if it is, anyone who thinks it is BS should have the courage to try to change the 2nd Amendment, rather than simply ignoring it and trying to enact legislation which violates its terms.

One of Maher’s guests on this show was David Stockman, former budget director for President Ronald Reagan.  Stockman, an ostensible conservative, commented that the idea of armed citizens rising in the face of the government is a modern day fantasy, saying:

“People who believe in liberty, like I do, we’re up against a 21st-century state equipped with drones, hundreds of satellites in the sky, watching everything we do.  Why would you believe that an 18th-century civilian militia equipped with the equivalent of muskets has anything to do with liberty? It doesn’t.”

Which, to be blunt, is just dumb.  For starters, no one involved in today’s gun control discussion is advancing the idea that an “18th century civilian militia” has anything to do with fighting “a 21st century state … watching everything we do.”  And if you think that a “well-armed civilian militia” equipped with modern weapons cannot resist a “21st century state”, please explain to me how a ragtag militia in Afghanistan has managed to resist the two most powerful military organizations in the world for a combined total of 21 years (the Russians for 9 years, the US for 12).

Never mind the possibility that a time will come when there are no drones, satellites or 21st century weapons and we will have to protect ourselves against or without the aid of any government.  I have discussed this before:

https://freelegaladvice.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/gun-control-and-your-right-to-defend-yourself-your-home-and-your-loved-ones/

Scroll down to the second half of that discussion, “Self-Defense in Case of a National Emergency”, for a more complete discussion of this issue.  To briefly repeat the primary point, the book One Second After by William Forstchen, fictionalizes what might happen in the US in the aftermath of an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) event.  An EMP event (which could occur as part of a foreign attack or as a result of natural occurrences) could conceivably shut down all electricity in large portions of the US.  That would mean no electrically operated devices would work — some obvious examples, computers, televisions, radios and telephones.  Less obvious examples, refrigerators & freezers, microwave ovens, washers & dryers, both interior and exterior lighting, and even most modern motor vehicles (the engines of which are operated by electrical commands).

Should this happen, of course, most “21st century” weaponry, as well as drones and satellites, would be rendered useless.  And, as Forstchen says:

You are on your own … for weeks, maybe months.   Those of you living in Louisiana, Mississippi and coastal Texas know what I mean.  Don’t count on the government to come to your rescue in a post EMP America.  Consider yourself on your own from “one second after,” the event.  Those who realize that now have the greatest chance of survival.”

And, if you think his book is science fiction and farfetched, see the Wikipedia article on EMP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse

And this Heritage Foundation article about Congressional hearings on the subject:

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/11/congressional-hearing-raise-emp-awareness-now/

The possibility of an EMP event and the potential consequences thereof are science fact, not science fiction.

And keep in mind that an EMP event can also result from natural occurrences, such as a major solar flare, and not just as a result of a nuclear attack.  The website “Disaster Survival Resources” …

http://www.disaster-survival-resources.com/emp.html

… provides a relatively minor example of what can happen as a result of a solar flare:

“On March 13th, 1989 a huge solar induced magnetic storm that played havoc with the ionosphere, and the earth’s magnetic field. This storm, the second largest storm experienced in the past 50 years, totally shut down Hydro-Quebec, the power grid servicing Canada’s Quebec province.”

As we grow increasingly dependent on electronically controlled devices, we also become increasingly vulnerable to the adverse effects of an EMP event.  And, having the ability to protect ourselves in case of such an event becomes increasingly important.

So, I call bullshit on Maher, who is wrong again, wrong again.  And on Stockman, who is not just wrong, but dangerously so.

The Virtual President of the United States on Gun Control


.

This is absolutely brilliant.

Click on the following link or the picture of Virtual President Bill Whittle below:

http://www.mrvirtualpresident.com/blog/article/guns-virtual-state-union-2013

Mr. Virtual President headerMr. Virtual President on 2nd Amendment & Guns

For additional virtual speeches, see the main page of the Virtual President here:

http://www.mrvirtualpresident.com/

On that page, you can also sign up for “Virtual Updates”, so as not to miss future offerings of the Virtual President.  I did.

You can also download a pdf version of the text of the gun speech by clicking on the link on the site — or here:

http://www.mrvirtualpresident.com/sites/default/files/transcripts/SOTU2013%20GUNSv3.pdf

2nd Amendment Letter to the Editor June 17, 2000


.

While looking through an old file today, I ran across this clipping of a letter to the editor of the Marin County Independent Journal (IJ) that was published on June 17, 2000.  Thirteen years later, it would seem that little has changed.

Note in particular the final sentence of the letter.  It presages where the government would now like to go — registration of every gun in the country, so that government officials know where all guns are.  Well, I own one, obtained before changes in the law required government involvement and approval.  I remain of the opinion expressed in this letter:  Unless and until I commit a crime using one, it is none of the government’s business whether I own a gun.

Letter to the Editor, Marin Independent Journal -- June 17, 2000

Letter to the Editor, Marin Independent Journal — June 17, 2000

“No One is Coming to Take Your Guns” … Yet


.

In an effort to re-assure people that stricter gun control laws are no threat to law-abiding gun owners, gun control advocates often say, “No one is coming to take your guns”.

Yet.

A recent example is a column published on Saturday, February 16th, by Sam Pollak of the Oneonta (NY) Daily Star:

http://thedailystar.com/columns/x1525014201/No-one-is-coming-to-take-your-guns

In this column, Pollak asserts:

“I have some very disappointing news for some of the more-virulent foes of sane gun-control legislation.  If you’re what the National Rifle Association loves to call a “law-abiding American citizen,” no one is going to take away your guns.

Not the federal government.  Not the state government.  Not the local government.  Not the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines or Coast Guard.  Not the United Nations.”

Obviously, Mr. Pollak hasn’t been paying attention.  Legislators in at least five states, including his home state of New York, have recently introduced gun control proposals which would include, to at least some degree, confiscation of firearms which are lawfully owned by citizens of those states.

Perhaps even more important than possible gun confiscation legislation is what might happen in one of those disaster situations, or MCEs, discussed in my previous blog post.  After reading that post, #2 son Matt brought to my attention one aspect of the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans of which I was unaware or which I had forgotten — the confiscation of civilian firearms at the very time they were most needed by their owners.

On September 8, 2005, New Orleans Police Superintendent Eddie Compass, without any legal authority whatsoever and in blatant violation of the 2nd Amendment, issued an order to local police, the Army National Guard and Deputy U.S. Marshals to confiscate all civilian owned firearms in the City of New Orleans.  He said, “No one will be able to be armed.  Guns will be taken.  Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns.”

Pursuant to this order, New Orleans cops seized privately owned weapons without benefit of search or arrest warrants and, sometimes, by use of excessive force.

One such excessive force incident was the seizure from 58 year old New Orleans resident Patricia Konie of a revolver.  Konie had declined to evacuate her home, which was well-provisioned, and kept the revolver for self-protection.

Several police officers entered her home and demanded that she surrender the revolver.  When she refused to do so, they took it from her by force, fracturing her shoulder in the process, then took her into custody for refusing to give up her weapon.

Unfortunately for the cops, the incident was video recorded and became the basis of virulent criticism of the confiscation order and the police tactics.  Several lawsuits ensued and, on September 23rd, a federal court issued an order restraining any further confiscation of lawfully owned weapons.

In response to the criticism (and the lawsuits), the city initially denied having confiscated any weapons.  Ultimately, however, the city admitted that more than 1000 weapons had been illegally seized.  And, despite several court orders that the weapons be returned, it was more than two years before this was finally accomplished.

As a result of these seizures, Louisiana enacted a 2006 law which prohibits confiscation of firearms during an emergency, unless the seizure is necessary to prevent immediate harm to a police officer or other person, or if it is part of a criminal investigation during which seizure would otherwise be lawful.  Subsequently, several other states passed similar laws.  And, as part of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007, a federal law prohibiting the seizure of lawfully owned private weapons during an emergency was enacted.

There are some law enforcement officials who understand and are prepared to uphold the law and the 2nd Amendment.  A group of Montana sheriffs has spoken out on the subject, vowing that they would not enforce any unconstitutional new federal gun laws.

Lewis and Clark County Sheriff Leo Dutton, in a written statement, announced:  “You will not find the Lewis and Clark County Sheriff’s Office deputies participating in ANY confiscation of firearms in an unlawful manner.”

In a letter to Vice President Joe Biden, Powell County sheriff Scott Howard said:  “We must not allow, nor shall we tolerate, the actions of criminals, no matter how heinous the crimes, to prompt politicians to enact laws that will infringe upon the liberties of responsible citizens who have broken no laws.”

For more information about these sheriffs, see this Helena, Montana, Independent Record article and photo:

http://helenair.com/news/local/sheriff-i-m-not-going-to-take-your-gun/article_ff94517a-6d8a-11e2-9deb-0019bb2963f4.html

Montana Sheriffs Scott Howard & Leo Dutton

Montana Sheriffs Scott Howard & Leo Dutton

Nevertheless, there are plenty of government officials like New Orleans Police Superintendent Compass who are more than ready to ignore the law and the Constitution in their zeal to disarm people.  That they may claim, as they often do, that they are acting out of concerns for “public safety” does not justify their unlawful actions.

This kind of official mentality brings to mind the saying — often mis-attributed to Thomas Jefferson — “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance”.  Whoever may have actually said it, the sentiment expressed remains valid.  Today, on the subject of private ownership of firearms, it is necessary to assert that vigilance against our own government officials and in favor of our constitutional rights.

Gun Control and Your Right to Defend Yourself, Your Home and Your Loved Ones


.

Following up on the conclusion to my previous post, two points to discuss here:

1)  Gun control from the perspective of those who have actually used guns in defense of themselves, their homes and their loved ones;  and

2)  Why and under what possible future circumstances the availability of firearms for such protection would be desirable, if not essential, to the survival not only of individuals, but our society as a whole.

.

Your Right to Defend Yourself, Your Home and Your Loved Ones

Lost in the gun control debate, which has focused almost exclusively on the negative uses of firearms by criminals, is any discussion of the right of people to use guns to defend themselves and protects their homes and families.

Unfortunately, there isn’t much available in the way of reliable statistics about such use — in part for the same reasons that the subject is ignored in the gun control debate.  One nut killing a number of people with a gun is BIG news.  A homeowner using a gun to protect himself and his family against criminals rates barely a mention in the local newspaper and none whatsoever in the national news.

A recent article by Paul Barrett on the Bloomberg BusinessWeek website summarized the statistical dispute over defensive use of firearms. This article is available here:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense

Barrett notes that one 1994 study (by Gary Kleck, an accomplished criminologist at Florida State University) extrapolated a result of 2 million self-defense uses per year.  Conversely, an annual federal government research project, called the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), estimates in the neighborhood of 100,000 defensive gun uses per year.

Finally, Barrett notes, “… other social scientists have suggested that perhaps a figure somewhere between 250,000 and 370,000 might be more accurate.”  In support of this statement, he cites a 1997 article by Tom W. Smith of the National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago, in the Northwestern Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, which is available here:

http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/smitht1.htm

So, what does this all mean in terms of the gun violence/control debate?

There is, of course, no way of knowing how many innocent lives are saved every year by these defensive gun uses.  Not every such use saves a life, but some assuredly must do so.  What percentage?  5%?  10%?

One gun rights source, Second Amendment Sisters, in an article entitled “Nine Myths About Gun Control”, estimates 20%. See the concluding sentence of the discussion of Myth #1 in this article here:

http://rense.com/general76/mths.htm

This estimate, in turn, is based on the 1994 article “Guns in the Medical Literature — A Failure of Peer Review” by Edgar A. Suter, MD, in the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia, which is available in full here:

http://www.rkba.org/research/suter/med-lit.html#abstract

Dr. Suter observes, correctly in my opinion, that:  “The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected ….” by defensive gun use.

Gary Kleck’s analysis of defensive gun use notes that:  “Each year about 1500-2800 criminals are lawfully killed by gun-wielding American civilians in justifiable or excusable homicides, far more than are killed by police officers.”

So, for purposes of this discussion, let’s use the lowest estimate of defensive gun uses per year, the NCVS estimate of 100,000.  And let’s assume that only one in ten of such uses saves an innocent life.  In that case, the total number of lives saved is 10,000, at a cost of between 1500-2800 dead bad guys.  Sounds like a pretty fair trade off to me.

Furthermore, it also means that every year guns save nearly as many innocent lives as they take … and that’s a low estimate.  If we use the “more accurate” estimate of 250,000 to 370,000 defensive gun uses per year, guns are saving upwards of three times as many innocent lives as they are taking.

What this means in terms of the gun control debate is this — the more we restrict access by law-abiding citizens to self-defense firearms, the fewer innocent lives those citizens and their firearms will save.  And, since it seems likely that most crooks won’t any more attention to stricter gun control laws than they currently pay to the existing gun control laws, the relative rate of innocent lives lost compared to those saved will rise.  In other words, the stricter the gun control, the higher the relative loss of innocent lives.

All of which says nothing about the other “protective benefits of guns” — “the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected“.

.

Self-Defense in Case of a National Emergency

Earlier today, I posted on Facebook a comment about the recent Public Service Announcement by Milwaukee County WI Sheriff David Clarke in which he urged citizens to arm themselves for self-protection.  In this PSA, Sheriff Clarke said:

“You can beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed or you can fight back.  But, are you prepared?  Consider taking a certified safety course in handling of firearms so you can defend yourself until we get there.  You have a duty to protect yourself and your family.

Sheriff Clarke’s full 32 second PSA is available here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8TCx-sM1vw

My comment about this announcement is here:

http://www.facebook.com/jamest.reilly.3

I said:

“If you think that the government — national, state or local — will always be able to protect you in an emergency, just ask the folks in New Orleans. And, even if it is a personal emergency only (such as a home invasion), how quickly do you think the local cops will get there to rescue you? Ten minutes? Five? Two? Too late in any event. Your personal safety is your personal responsibility. Have a family? They are your responsibility, too. Not the government’s. Not the local sheriff or chief of police. You are your family’s first line of defense and, perhaps, the last as well.”

In the U.S. government’s assessment of its own response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans, it was noted that:

“Almost immediately following Hurricane Katrina’s landfall, law and order began to deteriorate in New Orleans. The city’s overwhelmed police force–70 percent of which were themselves victims of the disaster—did not have the capacity to arrest every person witnessed committing a crime, and many more crimes were undoubtedly neither observed by police nor reported. The resulting lawlessness in New Orleans significantly impeded—and in some cases temporarily halted—relief efforts and delayed restoration of essential private sector services such as power, water, and telecommunications.”

This comment appears in the section of the report entitled “Critical Challenge: Public Safety and Security”.  The report in full is available here:

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/reports/katrina-lessons-learned/chapter5.html

In this regard, of course, New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is not unique.  Any time there is a breakdown in civil order, crime is increasingly prevalent as civil disorder increases.  And, all too often, in the midst of such civil disorder, governmental authorities, including law enforcement officials, will simply not be available to protect most citizens.  As Sheriff Clarke says, “You have a duty to protect yourself and your family.”  If the bad guys have guns and you don’t, it is going to be difficult or impossible for you to fulfill that duty.

In a 2012 “Mass Violence & Emergency National Training Conference” program entitled “Dealing with Secondary Crime Arising from Mass Casualty Events”, several key points are addressed:

1)  During major disasters (“Mass Casualty Events” or MCEs), people are more vulnerable, local law enforcement officers are distracted or overwhelmed, and criminals can exploit the situation.

2)  As a result, property crimes, including looting, are common.

3)  Regarding Hurricane Katrina in particular, “a growing body of evidence suggests there were more storm-related sexual assaults than previously known.

4)  “Disasters contribute to a significant increase in domestic violence, including acts such as domestic-related criminal homicide, rape, aggravated assault, stalking, and violent threats or intimidation.”

5)  “An increase in human trafficking often comes in the wake of a natural disaster.”

6)  The incidence of hate crimes can rise after a major disaster:  “Post-disaster hate crimes have consisted of telephone, internet, mail, and face-to-face threats; minor assaults as well as assaults with dangerous weapons and assaults resulting in serious injury and death; and vandalism, shootings, arson and bombings directed at homes, businesses, and places of worship.”  (emphasis added)

The complete slide presentation for this program is available here:

https://ncjtc.org/CONF/Ovcconf/AttMat/Dealing%20with%20Secondary%20Crime_Crimando.pdf

In short, during a major disaster, you are more likely to become a victim of crime, including violent crimes like rape, aggravated assault, arson and murder, than at other times.  At the same time, local law enforcement is being overwhelmed by the demands of the disaster.  Meaning that those upon whom you might otherwise depend to protect yourself against increased crime are simply not available to do so.  At such times, more than ever, you have a duty to protect yourself and your family.  How are you going to do so?

And what happens in the event of a more generalized breakdown in civil order.  Localized disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina, are bad enough.  But what happens in the event of a more widespread disaster?

In an earlier post about gun control …

https://freelegaladvice.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/what-now-for-the-second-amendment-gun-control/

… I referred to the book One Second After by William Forstchen, in which the author fictionalized what might happen in the US in the aftermath of an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack.  For those unfamiliar with EMP, such an event could conceivably shut down all electricity supply in large portions of the US.  That would mean no electrically operated devices would work — some obvious examples, computers, televisions, radios and telephones.  Less obvious examples, refrigerators & freezers, microwave ovens, washers & dryers, both interior and exterior lighting, and even most modern motor vehicles (the engines of which are operated by electrical commands).

Forstchen’s book focuses on how one American community in North Carolina deals with the consequences of an EMP attack.  And makes clear just how important having firearms for self-protection would be in the event of such an attack.

See Forstchen’s website for detailed discussions of EMP and how to prepare for such an attack:

http://www.onesecondafter.com/

In the section of this site entitled “Preparing for EMP” …

http://www.onesecondafter.com/pb/wp_194d9c9d/wp_194d9c9d.html

… Forstchen says:

You are on your own … for weeks, maybe months.   Those of you living in Louisiana, Mississippi and coastal Texas know what I mean.  Don’t count on the government to come to your rescue in a post EMP America.  Consider yourself on your own from “one second after,” the event.  Those who realize that now have the greatest chance of survival.”

With respect to personal security, Forstchen says:

“This is a tough one to discuss.  In 1999 I kinda chuckled at some friends who were convinced Y2K was going to wipe us out and I think were slightly disappointed when it did not. I am not some right wing gun fanatic who sees conspiracies lurking round every corner, but I do take personal security seriously. This is a personal choice you will have to make on your own, I can’t advise other than to say this:

“There is a percentage of our population who will view a post EMP world as a paradise, where their system of survival, their personal greed, their willingness to use any means possible to survive will come to the fore. Yes, it is a plot point of the novel, but it is also a harsh reality. There are places in this world, at this very moment, where someone would kill you for a can of food. Someday, that could be America.   

“If you do not own a gun but should decide to do so now, please get the proper training.  I was fortunate in that my father was a firearms instructor during WWII and my training from him was the best, a training I have passed on to my daughter.  Always remember the valid statistics that a weapon in your house is an increased danger to you and your family, especially without proper training of all family members and not just yourself, but on the other side, it might be the crucial factor of survival in a post EMP world.  If you are unfamiliar with firearms but decide to purchase one, talk to the experts, you will find your local police are great guys to point you in the proper and safe direction.  I have a permit to carry a concealed weapon.  I know that in some areas you cannot obtain that. If you can, the training to get the permit is superb and again crucial to your own safety and that of your family and does insure that your having a loaded weapon on you is legal.”  (emphasis added)

And, if you think his book is science fiction and farfetched, see the Wikipedia article on EMP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse

And this Heritage Foundation article about Congressional hearings on the subject:

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/11/congressional-hearing-raise-emp-awareness-now/

The possibility of an EMP event and the potential consequences thereof are science fact, not science fiction.

And keep in mind that an EMP event can also result from natural occurrences, such as a major solar flare, and not just as a result of a nuclear attack.  The website “Disaster Survival Resources” …

http://www.disaster-survival-resources.com/emp.html

… provides a relatively minor example of what can happen as a result of a solar flare:

“On March 13th, 1989 a huge solar induced magnetic storm that played havoc with the ionosphere, and the earth’s magnetic field. This storm, the second largest storm experienced in the past 50 years, totally shut down Hydro-Quebec, the power grid servicing Canada’s Quebec province.”

As we grow increasingly dependent on electronically controlled devices, we also become increasingly vulnerable to the adverse effects of an EMP event.  And, having the ability to protect ourselves in case of such an event becomes increasingly important.

.

Conclusion

You have a right to defend yourself, your home and your loved ones.  You have that right today, tomorrow and every day thereafter … and under all circumstances.  You cannot know in advance when it may become necessary for you to do so, either against a routine criminal assault or during a localized or national emergency.

In fact, as noted by Sheriff Clarke, you not only have a right to defend yourself, your home and your loved ones, “You have a duty to protect yourself and your family.”

Do not allow the government to impair your ability to fulfill that duty by diluting or eliminating your 2nd Amendment right to “keep and bear arms” … or by restricting that right in such a way as to make it impossible to effectively use those arms should it become necessary to do so.  Do not succumb to the fear-mongering of those who would disarm you, or unduly restrict your ability to use your weapons, in the name of “public safety”.

The Advocates for Self-Government on Guns & Gun Control


.

For excellent articles presenting the Libertarian perspective on guns & gun control, see the current issue of The Liberator Online, published by The Advocates for Self-Government, here:

http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=8f8d44f1fc10bd074f648a4de&id=f71e617efd&e=16f5dddde4

“Assault Weapons” Ban(d-aid)

Aside


.

Following up on my previous post on this subject, which is at …

https://freelegaladvice.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/what-now-for-the-second-amendment-gun-control/

John R. Lott, Jr., in a January 17th Wall Street Journal article, provided an excellent review of the ineffectiveness of the so-called “assault weapons” ban of 1994:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323468604578245803845796068.html

The long and the short of it is, that “ban” was worthless in accomplishing its supposed purpose.  Lott cites a 2004 study which concluded, “”we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”

Commenting on current proposals by President Obama and Senator Diane Feinstein to once again ban “assault weapons”, Lott echoes a point I made in my earlier blog post linked above, stating, “… they continue to mislabel the weapons they seek to ban.”

As I said in that earlier post, there really is no such thing as an “assault weapon” and those weapons likely to be “banned” by any new legislation are not truly “military-style” weapons at all.  As Lott says, no self-respecting military would ever go into combat using the semi-automatic weapons available for sale to civilians.

“Assault weapons” were defined in the 1994 legislation based on appearance, rather than function.  Any weapon that does not require reloading after each shot is a “semi-automatic” weapon — which really means nothing more or less than that one pull of the trigger fires one bullet.  Which pretty much means every modern firearm, pistol, rifle or shotgun.

Unfortunately, neither the executive orders already signed by Obama nor whatever new “assault weapons” ban is ultimately enacted are likely to accomplish the desired goal of reducing or eliminating incidents of mass murder or even reduction of the murder rate in the US.

The reason, of course, is that neither the number of guns nor their accessibility to law-abiding citizens is the underlying cause of murderous incidents (the two most common motivators being mental illness and simple revenge).  Stricter gun control addresses neither of those motivators, nor any of the other social factors which often play into handgun murders (such as gang violence, drug turf wars, armed robberies and other possession/use of firearms by criminals).

Dealing with gun related murders by enacting an “assault weapons” ban or otherwise imposing stricter gun control laws is analogous to treating a gunshot wound by taping a band-aid across the entry point and ignoring the internal damage caused by the bullet.

Dispelling the Myth that More Guns = More Murders


.

Aside from their inability or unwillingness to read and comprehend the plain language of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, proponents of more restrictive gun control laws rely on a bald-faced lie to support their efforts to disarm law-abiding citizens.

That lie, of course, is the claim that possession of more guns  by private, law-abiding citizens results in more violent crime and, in particular, more murders … and the corollary thereto, that reducing the number of guns in the possession of such citizens will reduce violent crime and murder.

Despite the strident bleating of gun control advocates, the truth of the matter is that denying law-abiding citizens access to firearms does not result in a decrease in murders or other violent crimes.  In fact, world-wide statistics demonstrate conclusively that the opposite is true.

It is understandable that mass murders like those at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, arouse the passions … and fears … of, well, just about everyone.  Nevertheless, public policy ought not be driven by the irrational fears generated by such aberrational events.  And make no mistake, mass murder in the US is aberrational.

Gun control advocates cite in support of their efforts to impose new restrictions on personal gun ownership the fact that the US has the highest number of guns per person of any country in the world and that the homicide rate in this country is the highest in the world.  The first of these claims is true;  the second is demonstrably false.  Some gun control advocates are more honest (and more accurate), claiming only that the US has the highest murder rate among “western countries” (also false), or among “developed nations” (also false), or at least that it is higher than the counties of Europe which have strict gun controls (which is largely, though not entirely, true).

The problem with all of these claims, even with respect to those countries which have stricter gun controls and a lower murder rate, is that it fails to properly correlate the two key statistics (number of guns and number of murders) and also fails to take into consideration other factors which are essential to a full and complete understanding of the gun control issue and what, if anything, should (and can constitutionally) be done about it.

So, what are the true facts about gun ownership and murder rates around the world?

First, it is true that the US has the world’s highest per capita ownership of firearms.  As of 2007, Americans owned, on average, nearly one firearm each;  or to be more precise, 88.8 firearms per 100 residents.  In fact, Americans own, on average, more than twice as many guns per person as the citizens of all but three other countries in the world.  See note 1 below.

Second, and on the other hand, the US ranks only 14th in the world in number of firearms related homicides (at 3.7 per 100,000 population per year).  This is not even the highest rate on the North American continent (Mexico coming in at 10.00, despite having only roughly 1/6 the number of guns per person as the US).  See Note 2 below. 

Third, and more significantly, when considering intentional homicides by all means, the US ranks 102nd out of 206 countries in the world (as of 2012).  The intentional homicide rate in the US is approximately 4.8 per 100,000 population per year.  This is less than 1/20 of the intentional homicide rate of the country with the highest rate in the world (Honduras at 91.6).  Honduras, by the way, has less than 7% of the number of guns per person as the US.  See Note 3 below.

Other “western” or “developed” countries with higher intentional homicide rates than the US include Mexico and Greenland, as well as virtually every country in Central & South America and the Caribbean.  It is true that most European countries, including all of those in Western Europe, have lower intentional homicide rates that the US.

Nevertheless, these statistics alone belie the claim that more guns equal more murders.  Otherwise, the US, which has nearly twice as many guns per capita as any other country, would also have twice as many intentional homicides per capita as any other country.  Not even close.

However, to truly evaluate the claim that “more guns = more murders”, there is one more correlation which must be considered — that is, the rate of homicides per firearm in each country.  Finding this statistic proved elusive.  In fact, I could not find it anywhere, so had to do the calculations myself.   I had what I considered sufficient statistics for 173 countries and the chart I produced is here:

Murders per 1000 guns

Now, if “more guns = more murders” and “fewer guns = fewer murders”, then the countries of the world which have the highest per capita gun ownership should have the highest per gun murder rates.  As you can see by reviewing my chart, this is not only NOT true, there is a very strong NEGATIVE correlation.  That is, for the most part, the countries with the highest per capita gun ownership tend to have the lowest per gun murder rates!

The US, with by far the most guns and the highest per capita gun ownership, ranks 81st in the world, averaging 146.35 murders per 1000 guns.  None of the other top 16 countries in the world in per capita gun ownership ranks in the top 100 in murders per gun — see list here:

Top 16 Countries in Per Capita Gun Ownership with Ranking in Murders per 1000 Guns

On the other hand, of the 15 countries with the highest murder rates, only one (Brazil, which is 12th in murders per 1000 guns and 75th in gun ownership) is in the top 100 countries in the world in terms of highest gun ownership.  Every other country with the 14 highest murder rates per 1000 guns ranks 102nd or below in gun ownership.

The only logical conclusion to be drawn from these facts is that it is neither the presence nor absence of guns which determines the rate at which people will kill each other.  There are obviously other factors involved, but what these facts unequivocally do show is that when people want to kill other people, they will find a way to do so, even if they do not have ready access to firearms.

Furthermore, the aberrational occurrence of mass or spree murders correlates with neither the rate of gun ownership nor the normal murder rates per gun or per capita.

The worst mass murder in modern history (not counting, of course, state sanctioned or military mass murders, a wholly different subject) occurred in the country which ranks 164th in murders per 1000 guns and which otherwise has a murder rate of just 0.6 per 100,000 people.  This, of course, was the 2011 killing of 77 people in Norway, 69 of whom were shot by firearms and 8 of whom were killed by a bomb.  The nut-ball who committed these murders, by the way, was a self-styled anti-Muslim militant, though his targets were not particularly Muslims.

The worst mass murder ever in an American school occurred in 1927 in Bath, Michigan, when 44 people, including 38 elementary school students, were killed by three bombs set off in the school.  This particular killer used no firearms at all.  Only the fact that most of the explosives he had placed in the school failed to detonate prevented a much higher death toll.

In the US, there are other factors involved in both the general and firearms murder rates, including “The Insane War on Drugs” and gang warfare problems.  The rate homicides resulting from these two issues are unlikely in the extreme to be reduced by further restrictions on the possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens.

Retired Texas Congressman Ron Paul, a nominal Republican but at heart a Libertarian, issued a statement after the Sandy Hook murders in which he said, in part:

“… do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, metal detectors, X-ray scanners, and warrantless physical searches?  We see this culture in our airports: witness the shabby spectacle of once proud, happy Americans shuffling through long lines while uniformed TSA agents bark orders.  This is the world of government provided “security,” a world far too many Americans now seem to accept or even endorse.  School shootings, no matter how horrific, do not justify creating an Orwellian surveillance state in America.

“Do we really believe government can provide total security?  Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence?  Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security? Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place.  Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives.  We shouldn’t settle for substituting one type of violence for another.  Government role is to protect liberty, not to pursue unobtainable safety.

“Our freedoms as Americans preceded gun control laws, the TSA, or the Department of Homeland Security.  Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference, not by safety. It is easy to clamor for government security when terrible things happen; but liberty is given true meaning when we support it without exception, and we will be safer for it. ”  (emphasis added)   See Note 4 below.

Americans of all political persuasions should take his words to heart.

_______________________________________________________

Note 1:  For the Wikipedia article “Number of guns per capita by country”, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

Note 2:  For the Wikipedia article “List of countries by firearm-related death rate”, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Note 3:  For the Wikipedia article List of countries by intentional homicide rate”, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Note 4:  For the full text of Ron Paul’s statement, see his webpage here:

http://www.ronpaul.com/2012-12-25/ron-paul-seeking-total-security-leads-to-a-totalitarian-society/

Trashing the 1st & 2nd Amendments in Tennessee


.

James Yeager is the owner of Tactical Response, a weapons training center in Camden, Tennessee.  His business trains people in weapons use and tactical skills — a sign on door of the business warns that the staff is trained to kill.

In response to reports that the Obama administration might take executive action to impose additional restrictions on individual rights under the 2nd Amendment, Yeager posted a You Tube video in which he said, among other things, “I’m telling you, if that happens, it’s going to spark a civil war, and I’ll be glad to fire the first shot,”

In response to Yeager’s comments — and in blatant violation of both the 1st and 2nd Amendments — the Tennessee Department of Safety & Homeland Security suspended Yeager’s carry permit.  TDS&HS Commissioner Bill Gibbons said in a news release announcing the suspension, “The number one priority for our department is to ensure the public’s safety. Mr. Yeager’s comments were irresponsible, dangerous, and deserved our immediate attention. Due to our concern, as well as that of law enforcement, his handgun permit was suspended immediately. We have notified Mr. Yeager about the suspension today via e-mail. He will receive an official notification of his suspension through the mail.”

Perhaps the “number one priority” of the TDS&HS ought to be upholding the 1st and 2nd Amendments of the US Constitution.  And perhaps Commissioner Gibbons ought to be more concerned about upholding the oath of office he took upon assuming control of his department, in which he swore to “support the constitutions of Tennessee and the United States”.

This suspension is clearly and unequivocally a violation of Yeager’s 1st Amendment right to free speech.  As decided by the United States Supreme Court in the 1965 Brandenburg v. Ohio case, the government cannot punish an individual who engages in “inflammatory speech” unless it is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, “imminent lawless action“.

Yeager’s comments were unquestionably “inflammatory”.  Nevertheless, they are constitutionally protected against punishment by the State of Tennessee by the 1st Amendment, as applied to the states through the 14th Amendment.

In Brandenburg, a per curiam (unanimous) decision, the court said, “Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”  (emphasis added)

Because comments were conditioned on uncertain future events (“if that happens”), they cannot be taken as “inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and cannot be “likely to incite or produce such action”.  As the Brandenburg court also noted, “The line between what is permissible and not subject to control and what may be made impermissible and subject to regulation is the line between ideas and overt acts.”  (emphasis added)

In unlawfully punishing Yeager for the exercise of his 1st Amendment rights, the state of Tennessee has also “infringed” on Yeager’s 2nd Amendment right “to keep and bear arms” — a constitutional “two fer”, if you will.

Yeager has since revised his You Tube video to remove some of the more inflammatory comments.  He is now referring all questions about the situation to his attorney and intends to pursue a legal review of his license suspension.

______________________________________

The Huffington Post article about Yeager’s diatribe is here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/10/james-yeager-start-killing-people-obama-gun-policy_n_2448751.html

The MSNBC post regarding the suspension of Yeager’s handgun carry permit is here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/50429293

The Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security website is here:

http://www.tn.gov/safety/

The Wikipedia article on Brandenburg v. Ohio (which discusses the Supreme Court 1st Amendment decisions on this issue which preceded Brandenburg) is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

The Brandenburg decision is available on Justia.com here:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/case.html

More on the 2nd Amendment & Gun Control


 

My December 29th post “What Now for the 2nd Amendment and Gun Control?” …

https://freelegaladvice.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/what-now-for-the-second-amendment-gun-control/

… motivated a lengthy and somewhat contentious email conversation among my West Point classmates.  There are several aspects of that conversation which I will address in my blog over the next few days, starting with some perceptive and pertinent comments and questions by Terry Atkinson.

First, Terry commented:  The logic behind the belief that the 2d amendment’s protection of an individual’s right to own arms is limitless eludes me. If one truly believes that, as Jim states fairly unequivocally in his blog discussion, then it must follow that ‘arms’ such as M109 howitzers  enjoy the same protection as handguns or semiautomatic weapons. It seems to me, however, that the logic would also cover such weapons as nuclear weapons and, let’s say, B-1 bomber delivery systems. If, indeed, you all belief that, it seems to me that your logic fails the common sense test.  I can’t imagine any country that allows its citizens unfettered access to say nukes, thousand pound bombs, napalm canisters, sarin gas canisters, cobra gunships with flechette rockets, or any number of mass-killing weapons would last.

Actually, my “strict construction” view of the 2nd Amendment does not envision a “limitless” right to own weapons.  In fact, a strict construction reading of the amendment’s language makes clear that it does not apply to modern warfare weapons such as howitzers, nukes and bombers.

A thorough analysis of the 2nd Amendment requires a thorough review and understanding of the amendment’s language and what that language meant at the time it was ratified.  To be a “strict constructionist”, one must strictly construe the entirety of the particular constitutional provision being discussed.  Therefore, to respond to Terry’s first point, it is primarily necessary to understand what the term “to keep and bear arms” meant when the 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1791.

First and most important, what did the word “arms” mean at that time?  Historical commentary and arguments both for and against the adoption of this amendment make it clear that by “arms”, the author of the Bill of Rights (James Madison), and those who voted to ratify it, meant weapons that were neither designed for military use nor typically put to such use.  By “arms”, the amendment was intended to refer to personal weapons, such as pistols, rifles and shotguns.  It clearly was not intended to refer to military-style, 18th century artillery pieces and, by analogy, cannot now be thought to refer to the 21st century successors to such military weapons.

The phrase “to keep and bear” arms confirms this interpretation.  To “keep … arms”, of course, means nothing more than to be able to have them in one’s possession.  At the writing of the 2nd Amendment, “to bear” meant “to carry”.  Although that term is now somewhat archaic, it clearly refers to weapons which an individual could carry with him on his person.

Thus, the phrase “to keep and bear arms” meant (and means) that the government cannot infringe “the right of the people to have and carry personal weapons such as pistols, rifles and shotguns”.

This would currently exclude from constitutional protection such weapons as fighter aircraft, naval ships and weapons, artillery pieces, napalm, nukes & other bombs, as well as even such lesser weapons as 50 caliber machine guns, shoulder mounted rocket launchers, flamethrowers, hand grenades and most other military-style weapons.

The US Supreme Court holding in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), reached the same conclusions.  The court in Heller said that the previous Supreme Court decision United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), did not “limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes”.  The court went on to find support for this conclusion in what it called the “historical tradition” of prohibiting the carrying of  “dangerous and unusual” weapons.

Terry’s second comment:  If you don’t believe that nukes and these other weapons enjoy the protection of the 2d amendment, then it seems to me you are recognizing a limitation to the amendment — a limitation that does not appear to be written into the ‘strict constructionist’s’ reading of the amendment. Logic then suggests that there ARE limits to the constitutional right based on ‘reasonableness’ or current conditions or changing societal mores or something. If true, it seems to me the issue is no longer whether the 2d amendment prevents the government from restricting arms ownership but rather a question of where the line of reasonableness is drawn. This, IMO, is an entirely different argument and one that I can understand.

As should be clear from my preceding comments, I do not believe that nukes and other military weapons are protected by the 2nd Amendment.  I disagree, however, with Terry’s conclusion that this implies a “limitation” on the 2nd Amendment’s protections.  Rather, my “strict construction” interpretation of that amendment is that such weapons were not then and were never intended to be covered by the 2nd Amendment.  A true “strict construction” of the amendment still leads to the conclusion that the government cannot infringe on “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”, within the original meaning of that language.  This reading has nothing to do with “reasonableness”, current conditions or changing societal mores.

Nevertheless, the end result is, with respect to military style weaponry, the same and it appears that Terry & I agree that the government can constitutionally restrict individual access to, or possession and use of, such weapons.

Terry’s third point was in the form of a question, and a very good one, at that:  Where in the 2nd amendment or constitution for that matter does it state that the rights stated therein do not cover persons who have committed crimes or are diagnosed with mental illnesses? My “strict interpretation” of the Constitution tells me that anyone can own a weapon whether they have a criminal past or not. Isn’t that right?

Answering this question requires further analysis — initially, what governmental action would “infringe” on the individual’s right to bear arms?  Or, in simpler terms, what did (does) the word “infringe” mean?

The oldest definition I can find is from Webster’s Dictionary of 1828, which likely reflects fairly closely what the word meant in 1791:

1.     To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.
2.     To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.

With this meaning of “infringe”, a “strict construction” interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would be that the government cannot “break or violate” (or perhaps “deny”, as in “neglect to fulfill”) “the right of the people to have and carry personal weapons such as pistols, rifles and shotguns”.

What the 2nd Amendment itself does not address, however, and what must then be considered both in terms of the contemporaneous understanding of what the amendment meant and what it must be understood to mean now is whether or not, and if so, how a particular person can lose his constitutional rights, including his “right to keep and bear arms”.

Although neither the Bill of Rights nor the Constitution proper address that possibility, there are constitutional provisions which provide guidance in this regard.  Article I, section 8,  and Article III, section 3, empower Congress to define certain federal crimes and to establish the punishment to be imposed for violations thereof.  Article III, section 2, and Article IV, section 2, acknowledge that the states have the authority to define crimes and punishments.  Furthermore, it is clear that all of the Founding Fathers of this country, and probably the vast majority of the populace, recognized that the government could revoke even the “inalienable rights” of the people by fining, imprisoning or, in extreme cases, executing those who violated the laws of the country or the states.

Clearly, the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” could be forfeited by those who committed crimes.  There is neither any logical reason nor any historical interpretation by which it could be concluded that the 2nd Amendment “right to keep and bear arms” was somehow exempted from forfeiture as a result of a sufficiently serious criminal conviction.  Nor is there any logical reason to conclude that this right cannot now be forfeited for the same reason.

Thus, as a general proposition, a person who has committed a sufficiently serious (felony) crime no longer has a right to keep and bear arms to be infringed.  And governmental restriction of that person’s access to firearms or other weapons would not violate the 2nd Amendment.

I do have personal reservations about the constitutionality of the extensions of this concept being enacted by some states, including denial of access to firearms based on misdemeanor criminal convictions, such as domestic violence.  That, however, is really a subject for a separate discussion at another time.

With respect to the remainder of Terry’s question in this regard, the issue of denying 2nd Amendment rights to people suffering from mental illnesses is constitutionally troublesome.  There is nothing in the Constitution by which it can be inferred that either the federal or state governments have lawful authority to revoke the rights of a person due to mental illness.

Nevertheless, it was common practice in the 1700s and early 1800s for local government to confine the mentally ill to either jails or poorhouses.  Since the Constitution does not otherwise address the issue, it must be understood in the context of the times.  The implication of this historical perspective, of course, is that the mentally ill could, on that basis alone, lose some or all of their “rights”.  Presumably, Madison and those who ratified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, were aware of this common practice and had it in mind when formulating and ratifying those documents.

Therefore, a strict construction of the 2nd Amendment would also require that it be understood in that context.  Which means that the mentally ill, like convicted felons, can be thought of as not having any 2nd Amendment right to be infringed by governmental action.

There are, of course, other issues with respect to the 2nd Amendment, such as whether or not licensing requirements and concealed carry restrictions are constitutional or whether it is constitutionally permissible to restrict the carrying of weapons into certain places (such as public buildings).  And there is the question of whether gun control is a meaningful and effective way of dealing with the problem to begin with.  I will address some of these issues in future blog posts.

__________________________________________

The full 157 page opinion of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is available here:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

The Supreme Court decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), is available here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZO.html

Congressman Ron Paul is a Voice of Reason …


 

… in a political landscape otherwise devoid of common sense and constitutional acumen.  It is too bad, indeed, that Paul (Rep TX) is retiring.

On his website the week after the Sandy Hook murders, Paul addressed the issues of gun control and personal “security” in a post entitled “Government Security is Just Another Kind of Violence”.

He concluded his comments as follows (bold emphasis added:

“…do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, metal detectors, X-ray scanners, and warrantless physical searches?  We see this culture in our airports: witness the shabby spectacle of once proud, happy Americans shuffling through long lines while uniformed TSA agents bark orders.  This is the world of government provided “security,” a world far too many Americans now seem to accept or even endorse.  School shootings, no matter how horrific, do not justify creating an Orwellian surveillance state in America.

“Do we really believe government can provide total security?  Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence?  Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security? Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place.  Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives.  We shouldn’t settle for substituting one type of violence for another. Government role is to protect liberty, not to pursue unobtainable safety.

“Our freedoms as Americans preceded gun control laws, the TSA, or the Department of Homeland Security.  Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference, not by safety. It is easy to clamor for government security when terrible things happen; but liberty is given true meaning when we support it without exception, and we will be safer for it.

Paul is likely the most Libertarian nationally prominent member of either major political party.  I would have enthusiastically supported him for President this year … and will do so in 2016 if he chooses to run.

For the full text of Congressman Paul’s article “Government Security is Just Another Kind of Violence“, see:

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2037:government-security-is-just-another-kind-of-violence&catid=64:2012-texas-straight-talk&Itemid=69

What now for the Second Amendment & Gun Control?


 

In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School murders in Newtown, CT, there has once again been an outcry for increased restrictions on individual access to firearms in the United States.

As I have said before …

https://freelegaladvice.wordpress.com/2008/06/26/supremes-uphold-individual-handgun-ownership-right/

… when it comes to the Second Amendment (as well as the rest of the Constitution), I am a strict constructionist.  The Second Amendment says that the “… the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  See Notes 1 & 2 below.

To me, in the absence of an amendment to the Constitution modifying its terms, the Second Amendment means that the government (federal directly and state/local through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment) has no authority to “infringe” (per Merriam-Webster online Dictionary:  “to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another”) on the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.  Period.  Not handguns.  Not rifles.  Not shotguns.

Not even “assault weapons”, regarding which, by the way, there really is no such thing.  When the federal government passed the so-called “Assault Weapons Ban” in 1994, Congress had to make up a definition of what constituted an “assault weapon” within the meaning of the law.  See Note 3 below.

And, as just one example of how virtually meaningless that definition was, the law defined any semiautomatic rifle with a pistol grip and a bayonet mount as an “assault weapon”, but excluded from the definition a semiautomatic rifle with just a pistol grip.  Go figure.

Now, you might be tempted to say (and I would agree) that any fully automatic weapon should be considered an “assault weapon”.  But, you should also be aware that fully automatic weapons have been heavily regulated, controlled and restricted since 1934 (think Prohibition era gangsters).  Never mind that there is nothing in the Second Amendment which can be interpreted to mean that the federal government has lawful authority to infringe on the right of individuals to “keep and bear” even fully automatic “arms”.  The average law-abiding citizen simply cannot legally obtain, much less “keep and bear”, fully automatic weapons.

What then, you ask, of semi-automatic weapons (like the Bushmaster .223 rifle used by the Newtown nutball) — aren’t they “assault weapons”?  Some people would say so.  However, a “semi-automatic” weapon is one which fires only one round each time the trigger is pulled, but reloads the next round automatically.  Well, guess how revolvers work — when you pull the trigger, the cylinder rotates and reloads the next round automatically, then fires;  when you pull the trigger again, the cylinder rotates and reloads the next round automatically — “semi-automatic”, by definition.

In fact, virtually every modern handgun is “semi-automatic”.  Are they all “assault weapons”?  I submit not.

So, any “assault weapons” ban that might be enacted going forward will have the same problem that the 1994 ban (which was largely ineffective in accomplishing its presumed objective and therefore allowed to expire in 2004) had — how to define the weapons being “banned”.  See Note 4 below.

And what about high capacity magazines?  Doesn’t the fact that a semi-automatic weapon can be loaded with a 30 shot magazine make it an “assault weapon” worthy of being banished?  Not really.

An accomplished gunman utilizing a weapon like the Bushmaster can aim and effectively fire 30 rounds in perhaps 15 seconds.  So, let’s say 30 shot magazines are banned and the maximum allowed is just 10 rounds.  Okay.  This same accomplished gunman can eject an empty magazine and load a new one in 5 seconds, less if he’s really good at it.  So, to fire the same 30 rounds will take 3 magazines, having to reload twice in the process.  Thus, the total time to fire 30 rounds will be 15 seconds to aim and fire plus 10 seconds to reload the two magazines.  Total 25 seconds.  Would this have any meaningful effect on the likely outcome of a shooting incident like Sandy Hook?  Not very likely.

So, what should be done to increase gun control in the US?

I submit, contrary to the hue and cry currently being raised by some, nothing.

The belief that increased restrictions on private ownership of guns will reduce gun violence in the United States is, essentially, wishful thinking.  Connecticut has some of the most restrictive gun control state laws in the country.  The guns used by the Sandy Hook lunatic were legally obtained and owned by his mother.

I have read many claims that we need gun control laws like those in effect in most European countries, where the homicide rates are (generally) lower than that in the US.  However, the single worst civilian mass shooting in history occurred in a country with some of the most restrictive gun ownership laws and regulations in the world.  On July 22, 2011, another demented individual attacked a summer camp on a Norwegian island, killed 69 people and wounded 110 (55 of them seriously).  See Note 5 below.

Norway’s homicide rate prior to that event was .6 per 100,00 population (compared to the US rate of 4.2).  And yet … and yet …  See Note 6 below.

A far better way to reduce the homicide rate in the US would be to end the “insane war on drugs”.

Apparently, we as a society learned absolutely NOTHING from the lessons of the failed policies of Prohibition.  According to the US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, nearly 20% of all violent crimes are committed by drug addicts to obtain money for drugs.  Legalize and regulate all drugs and you eliminate most of these violent crimes (and perhaps as many as 50% of all property crimes, as well).  See note 7 below.

Each year in the US, roughly 30,000 people die in firearms-related incidents.  More than half of these are suicides and perhaps 5% accidents.  Of the roughly 40% that are homicides (12,000 or so each year), more than 1000 are committed in “drug wars” (usually between rival drug sellers in “turf wars” over drug sales territories).  Eliminate the “insane war on drugs” and you eliminate drug wars and their associated homicides.  See Notes 8 & 9 below.

And, while I agree with the NRA that posting an armed guard in every school would discourage individuals from choosing schools as targets for their murderous rampages (when was the last time we had a mass murder in a government building, courtroom or airport with armed guards and security checkpoints?), I do not favor this approach for both economic (excessive costs) and personal liberty reasons.  See note 10 below.

We should not be teaching our children to live in fear.  And, as horrific as were the events in Sandy Hook, the occasional occurrence of such events is one of the prices we pay … and must pay … to live in a truly free society.

_______________________________

Note 1:  The full text of the Second Amendment is:  “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  The introductory clause, in my view, is not a restriction or limitation on the right protected by the amendment, but rather is the explanation for that right.

Note 2:  Anyone who thinks that modern circumstances have obviated the necessity of individual gun ownership to protect a “free state”, need only read One Second After by William Forstchen, described here:

http://www.onesecondafter.com/

And, if you think his book is science fiction and farfetched, see the Wikpedia article on EMP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse

And this Heritage Foundation article about Congressional hearings on the subject:

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/11/congressional-hearing-raise-emp-awareness-now/

Note 3:  For a good discussion of “assault weapons” and the 1994 ban, see:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/17/everything-you-need-to-know-about-banning-assault-weapons-in-one-post/

Note in particular this comment:  “Did the law have an effect on crime or gun violence? While gun violence did fall in the 1990s, this was likely due to other factors. Here’s the UPenn study again: “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”

Note 4:  For another, radically different, view of why gun violence (and crime in general) fell during the 1990’s, read the book Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything by Steven Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner.  In chapter 4 of this book, the authors make a compelling argument that the single most important factor in the drop in crime was the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade and the legalization of abortion in the US.  This is a subject worthy of a more extensive discussion, which I will consider for a future post here.

In the meanwhile, see:

http://www.freakonomics.com/blog/

and:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freakonomics

Note 5:  Regarding the mass murder in Norway, see this Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks

Note 6:  I recently received an email from a West Point classmate who made the claim that the homicide rate in the US is “more than double every other Western County”.  He did not clarify his definition of “Western country”, but unless you limit “Western countries” to North America north of the US-Mexican border, he is just wrong.  For a full list of the world homicide rates by country, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

There you will see that not only is our murder rate not “double every other Western country”, it is not even the highest in North America (not even second highest, actually, as both Mexico at 16.9 per 100,000 population and Bermuda at 12.3 have higher murder rates than the US at 4.2).

I also think Caribbean, Central and South American countries would be considered “Western”.  All 21 countries in the Caribbean have murder rates equal to (one country — Martinique) or greater than that of the US.  Eight Caribbean countries have murder rates five times or more than that of the US.  Jamaica’s murder rate (52.2) is more than 12 times that of the US.

All seven Central American countries have murder rates higher than that of the US.  Honduras has a murder rate of 96.6, 23 times that of the US.

Eleven of the 13 South American countries have murder rates higher than that of the US (Venezuela topping that list at 45.1)

Even in Europe (often cited as an exemplar for gun control which should be followed by the US), there are 8 countries which have higher murder rates than the US.  Only Western and Southern Europe have murder rates consistently lower than ours and not even all of those are as small as half that of the US.

Oddly, one of those (Switzerland at 0.7) has one of the highest per capita gun ownership rates in the world (4th behind the US, Serbia and Yemen).  For per capita gun ownership worldwide, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

Compare that list to the national murder rates and you will see that there is virtually no correlation between the two.  In fact, see this interesting article from the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy which posits that there is actually more of a negative correlation:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

One startling example noted in this study:  Luxembourg, which has such complete gun control that “handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal” has a murder rate (9.01) more than double that of the US.

Note 7:  For the US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, article on “Drugs and Crime Facts”, see:

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/dcf/duc.cfm

Note 8:  For a good article on “drug war” homicides, see:

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/bill-conroy/2012/03/drug-war-related-homicides-us-average-least-1100-year

Note 9:  For the Libertarian Party’s discussion on why we should end the “insane war on drugs”, see:

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarian-party-40-years-is-enough-end-the-drug-war

Note 10:  “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”  —- Benjamin Franklin, Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin (1818).

New California Laws Effective January 1, 2013


 

The California legislature passed some 800 new laws which become effective on January 1, 2013.

Some new criminal laws include:

AB 1432 adds Penal Code section 273j:  This law makes it a misdemeanor for a parent to fail to report within 24 hours that a minor child is missing or has died.  The full text of this law is available here:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_1401-1450/ab_1432_bill_20120930_chaptered.html

AB 1527 adds Penal Code section 26400:  This law makes it a misdemeanor to carry an unloaded firearm that is not a handgun in any incorporated city or city & county (i.e., San Francisco).  The full text of this law is available here:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_1501-1550/ab_1527_bill_20120928_chaptered.html

AB 2020 amends Vehicle Code section 23612 to provide for implied consent by any driver to submit to a breath or blood test if lawfully arrested for DUI.  This modifies existing law to delete the previously authorized alternative of submitting to a urine test.  The full text of this law is available here:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_2001-2050/ab_2020_bill_20120827_chaptered.html

SB 661 adds Penal Code section 594.37:  This law makes it a misdemeanor to picket, on public property, a funeral for a period of time starting one hour before the funeral starts and ending one hour after the funeral ends.  This law is designed primarily to track federal law protecting the privacy of military funerals.  The full text of this law is available here:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0651-0700/sb_661_bill_20120917_chaptered.html

New laws on some subjects previously discussed here:

SB 1140 amends Family Code section 400 to provide that any priest, minister, rabbi, or authorized person of any religious denomination may decline to solemnize a same-sex marriage if doing so is contrary to the tenets of his or her faith.  The full text of this law is available here:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_1101-1150/sb_1140_bill_20120930_chaptered.html

AB 1536 amends Vehicle Code section 23123.5 to authorize texting while driving as long as the driver is using a hands-free, voice-activated electronic messaging device.  This bill modifies existing law which prohibits texting while driving.  The full text of this law is available here:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_1501-1550/ab_1536_bill_20120713_chaptered.html

Some other new laws of interest:

AB 1708 amends Vehicle Code section 16088 to allow drivers to provide proof of insurance upon request of a law enforcement officer by use of a mobile electronic device.  This is a modification of existing law, which requires drivers to provide documentary proof of insurance upon request of a law enforcement officer.  The full text of this law is available here:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_1701-1750/ab_1708_bill_20120907_chaptered.html

SB 1264 amends Penal Code section 11165.7 to add to the list of “mandated reporters” of suspected child abuse or neglect athletic coaches, assistant coaches and graduate assistants.  This change brings these individuals within the coverage of existing law, which makes it a misdemeanor for a mandated reporter to fail to report such suspected abuse or neglect.  The full text of this law is available here:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_1251-1300/sb_1264_bill_20120924_chaptered.html

SB 1298 adds Vehicle Code section 38750:  This law authorizes the operation of “autonomous” vehicles (that is, vehicles which drive themselves, or more accurately, which are driven by a computer), as long as there is a licensed driver in the driver’s seat.  The full text of this law is available here:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_1251-1300/sb_1298_bill_20120925_chaptered.html

Supremes Uphold Individual Handgun Ownership Right


In a major victory for the rights of individuals, the U.S. Supreme Court today held in a 5-4 decision that the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does indeed protect the right of individuals to “bear arms” even if they are not part of a “well-regulated militia”.

Continue reading