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

“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.

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

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).

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