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

Advertisements

Ongoing Debate re 2nd Amendment & Gun Control


.

My earlier post here “Dispelling the Myth that More Guns = More Murders” …

https://freelegaladvice.wordpress.com/2013/01/14/dispelling-the-myth-that-more-guns-more-murders/

… generated considerable discussion among my West Point classmates.  One of them, John Douglas, is also an attorney with whom, on political issues, I more often than not agree.  On this subject, however, he disagrees with both my interpretation of the language of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution … discussed in detail at …

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

… and my position on gun control.

.

The “plain language” of the 2nd Amendment

In response to my comment that proponents of gun control demonstrate an “inability or unwillingness to read and comprehend the plain language of the 2nd Amendment”, John replied:

… the 2d Amendment has a contradictory construction, a tortured legal history and is notably devoid of “plain language.” The Amendment (in the version ratified by the States) reads, “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.”  According to gun rights advocates, this Amendment that speaks so highly of regulation clearly prohibits regulation of guns.  Hmmm.  Whatever it might have meant back then or should mean now, “the” meaning is hardly “plain”.

As I have said previously, I believe that the introductory clause to the 2nd Amendment is just that — an introduction which explains the reason for the right which is protected in the second clause, “the right to bear arms”.  The fact that the introduction refers to a “well-regulated militia” implies regulation of the militia (that is, the body of non-military citizens who can be organized, if necessary, for military service), not a limitation on the rights of the individuals who comprise that militia.

I replied to John:

In any event, the “tortured” historical interpretation of the 2nd Amendment came to be only because representatives of the government contorted what is, on its face, clear and unequivocal, so as to make it possible for the government to impose controls which would otherwise have been impermissible.

A detailed explanation of my “plain language” interpretation of the amendment is here:

https://freelegaladvice.wordpress.com/2013/01/04/more-on-the-2nd-amendment-and-gun-control/

John then responded:

I don’t think the tortured history of the Second Amendment is due to ‘contortions by representatives of the government’, but is rather due almost entirely to the amendment’s obtuse wording.  I’m told the former headquarters of the NRA had on the side of the building: ‘THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.’  That is, of course, only half the amendment.  So far as the NRA and like-minded folk were (and mostly are) concerned, that’s the whole amendment.  Except it isn’t.

The next most important factors in the tortured history would be the historical evolution of gun ownership in the US and the role of gov’t here.  In our early years, the federal gov’t’s role with guns was not particularly controversial.  Early on it mandated musket ownership by all military age males AND regulated that (by requiring regular musters for inspections of the muskets & registration of the same).  Despite what some now argue about prohibitions on regulations on ownership, our Founding Fathers actually altogether prohibited some classes of people from owning guns (such as slaves and even white males who refused to swear allegiance to the country).  We have had many changing alliances and understandings regarding the roles of guns in our society (particularly those that followed the upheaval of the Civil War), which have accompanied the evolving and multifaceted interpretations of the 2d Amend.  The short of it is that neither the wording of the Second Amendment nor the varying historical understandings of it are ‘plain’ or simple.

1792 Militia Act:  It is true that in 1792, Congress passed a law essentially requiring, with some exceptions, all able-bodied white male citizens and residents between the ages of 18 and 45 to acquire and maintain a musket, related supplies and other military equipment.  This law was poorly and unevenly enforced and did not, in fact, prohibit ownership of guns by slaves;  it simply did not require them to have guns.  Restrictions on gun ownership by slaves were imposed in the slave-owning states, but not by federal law.  Of course, under the constitution, slaves were not considered citizens (or even “whole” people, counting as they did under the constitution as only “three-fifths” of a person each), so would not have been covered by the 1792 militia act in any event.

Commentary by St. George TuckerA good indication of what the 2nd Amendment “plainly” meant can be ascertained from the early legal commentaries on the subject.  The earliest known such commentary was written in 1803 by St. George Tucker, whose annotated five volume edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England contained the observation that the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment was not subject to the restrictions that were part of English law:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed … and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government ….”  (emphasis added)

Tucker went on to express the hope that Americans “… never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty.”

Commentary by William RawleIn 1825, William Rawle, in A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, characterized the second clause of the Second Amendment as a general prohibition against government control of private gun ownership, saying:

No clause could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.

Rawle’s comment is particularly interesting in its suggestion that the 2nd Amendment could be relied upon to restrain state laws infringing on the right to bear arms.  This comment presaged the limitation on state power ultimately included in the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, which was not passed until 43 years later.  Section 1 of the 14th Amendment provides in part, “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”.

Commentary by Joseph Story:  In 1833, Joseph Story published his Commentaries on the Constitution. As expressed in those “commentaries”, his view the meaning of the Amendment was clear (and “plain”):

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.  (emphasis added)

In short, one of the primary purposes of the 2nd Amendment was to enable the people to protect themselves, if necessary, against the government.  That objective can hardly be accomplished if the government has the power to constitutionally infringe on the right of those same people to bear the arms needed for that very protection.

It was not, in fact, until after the American Civil War and on into the 19th century that legal scholars and commentary began to call into question whether the 2nd Amendment provided an individual right to bear arms or merely a “collective” right of the people to maintain an armed militia.

And that question, of course, was finally answered by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 2008 decision in  District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the full text of which can be seen here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=heller&url=/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

In this decision, the Supreme Court held that the 2nd Amendment does protect an individual right to possess firearms unconnected with service in a militia;  that such weapons may be used for “traditionally lawful purposes”, such as self-defense;  that the first clause of the 2nd Amendment “announces a purpose”, but does not limit the second and operative clause of the amendment;  and that the text and history of the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” indicates “an individual right to keep and bear arms”.

.

The effects of gun control

John Douglas also took exception to my discussion of the statistical evidence regarding the effects of gun control, saying:

I am also immediately turned off when a gun rights advocate attacks statistics on the effects of gun control with the ‘there is no evidence’ chain of reasoning.  One of the reasons we have limited evidence on the effects of gun possession in the US is the NRA’s successful stifling of research in the area – and, indeed, in the very collection of data upon which research might be done.  At the peak of gun violence in the early 90s, research results were released showing the higher death rates in homes with guns.   (emphasis added)

John then cited two studies funded by the Centers for Disease Control in support of that conclusion, studies the results of which are available at:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506#t=article

and

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199208133270705

The first of these studies addressed homicides in three American counties (Shelby County, TN;  King County, WA;  and Cuyahoga County, OH) during the years 1987 through 1992.  This study notes that more than 24,000 homicides were being committed across the country every year, indicating that approximately 120,000 homicides were committed during the five years addressed by the study.  However, the study actually considered just 420 homicides, or roughly 1/3 of 1% of the total U.S. homicides committed during those years.

Regarding the 420 homicides that were considered, the study noted:

Two hundred nine victims (49.8 percent) died from gunshot wounds. A knife or some other sharp instrument was used to kill 111 victims (26.4 percent). The remaining victims were either bludgeoned (11.7 percent), strangled (6.4 percent), or killed by other means (5.7 percent).

The study ultimately concluded that there was an increased risk of homicide in the home if guns were present (though it is readily apparent that even without guns, if people wanted to kill other people in their homes, there were a variety of other effective means available for that purpose).  However, the study also concluded that there were other factors which were “strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide in the home”, including rental rather than ownership, living alone, previous violence in the home, previous arrest of any resident of the home and drug use in the home.

In fact, four of these five other factors were found to have created a greater increased risk of homicide in the home than did the presence of guns. Use of drugs created an increased risk of homicide that was more than double that of the presence of guns in the home;  previous violence and living in a rental home each created a risk of homicide in the home 63% greater than the presence of guns;  and living alone created a risk of homicide in the home 37% greater than the presence of guns.  The only characteristic that created a lesser increased risk of homicide in the home than the presence of guns was the prior arrest of a resident in the home.

The sample in this study was so small as to be virtually meaningless in the big picture of gun violence and control.  Nevertheless, if taken at face value, it indicates that it is more important, in terms of reducing homicide in the home, to control drug use and violence in the home than it is to control the presence of guns.  In fact, if governmental policy is to be based on this type of statistical analysis, it would also appear to be more important to prohibit people from living alone or renting homes than it is to control the presence of guns.

In other words, this study isn’t very helpful in determining whether or not increased gun controls are useful in preventing homicides in the home or generally.

The second of the two studies John cited addressed 554 in-home suicides in two counties (Shelby County, TN, and King County, WA) over a 32 month period from 1987 to 1990.  Of these suicides, approximately 58% were committed using firearms.

While this study found an increased risk of suicide based on a gun being kept in the home, four other factors were found to have an even higher correlation to increased risk of suicide than the presence of a gun.  Use of prescribed psychotropic medication created an increased suicide risk 7.5 times that created by the presence of a gun; previous hospitalization for alcohol use more than three times;  use of drugs more than double;  and living alone slightly higher than the presence of a gun in the home.  Even failing to graduate from high school had a correlation to an increased risk of suicide that was almost equal to that created by the presence of a gun in the home.

In short, this study is even less useful than the other in determining whether or not greater government control of guns would be appropriate or effective at achieving the desired goals of gun control.

.

A straw man argument?

John also took exception to my discussion on another ground:

Finally, and perhaps most egregiously, you set up a straw man argument and, not surprisingly, defeat it, when you claim that gun control advocates are asserting that an increase in the number of guns – irrespective of all other variables – leads to an increase in crimes, especially murder.

To which I say, anyone who contends that reducing the number of guns in the possession of law-abiding citizens will reduce violent crime and murder is also necessarily claiming that an increase in the number of guns will have the opposite effect.  If you don’t contend that reducing the number of guns in the possession of law-abiding citizens will reduce violent crime and murder, then what is the purpose of imposing new laws and regulations designed to accomplish that goal?

John added:

I’m sure there are a few ill-informed fringe gun control advocates who think that way, but no reasonable proponents do.  We all have to recognize that violence levels have many causes. 

And to that I say, exactly.  And that is in fact the primary point of my opposition to the reflexive response of so many that simply imposing stricter gun controls will substantially reduce or even eliminate violent crime.  Interestingly, the two studies cited by John above actually support the conclusion that there are other factors which are much more important, at least with respect to deaths in the home, whether homicides or suicides, than the mere presence in the home of firearms.

John also disagreed with the statistical analysis I presented in “Dispelling the Myth …”, suggesting that the best comparison regarding prevalence of guns and murder rates is not between the U.S. and countries such as Mexico and Honduras, but “comparable” countries like Canada (even though Canadians have no rights comparable to those granted to Americans by the 2nd Amendment).  He notes that Canada is 31st in “homicide rate” (below the U.S., which is 14th), while the U.S. has a homicide per 1000 guns rate that is  7 times that of Canada.

And yet, the overall homicide rate in the U.S. (4.8 per 100,000 people in 2010) is just 3 times that of Canada;  meaning, of course, that Canadians are easily finding other ways, in the absence of ready access to guns, to kill each other.  Just as Americans would if they did not have access to guns.

There are other considerations which must be accounted for in any comparison between the American and Canadian gun-related and overall homicide rates.  For example, while it is true that the homicide rate is higher in the U.S., the overall difference in the rate of violent crimes, including homicides, has decreased, as the rate of violent crimes dropped faster in the U.S., during the 1990’s and 2000’s, than it did in Canada.

Other factors have a significant impact on the relative homicide rates for reasons that are largely unrelated to access to or possession of guns.  The U.S. has more cities with large, concentrated populations, and cities almost invariably have higher murder rates than rural areas, even in countries with strict gun controls and relatively rare private gun ownership.  The U.S. also has substantially more and a higher rate of both gang activity and drug related crime than does Canada; each of these criminal activities contribute disproportionately to the rate of gun-related homicides.

Elimination of the “insane war on drugs” and adoption of social policies designed to reduce gang activity would each do more to reduce the “gun-related” homicide rate in the U.S. than any of the proposed “gun control” measures.

.

Conclusion

John wrapped up his comments by saying:

As for the effects of gun control, I harbor no illusions that implementing even draconian restrictions would quickly alter our level of gun violence, since we are awash in guns and it would take decades to ‘drain the swamp’.  The modest restrictions on gun ownership that have been implemented here and there in the past, and that are likely in the future here, are mostly band-aids on a large open wound and will have at most a modest effect on gun violence.  To me, that’s sad, but that is the political reality. 

However, despite my pessimism on what can be done in the US, I stand by what I regard as the clear balance of evidence in regard to the relationship between the level of violence and the prevalence of guns.  When you compare countries with comparable levels of development and comparable social structures, the ones with much lower levels of gun ownership have much lower levels of gun violence.

And I stand by my own analysis in this regard, though I have to agree with the ultimate extrapolation of John’s concluding comment.  That is, there can be no doubt that if there were no guns in the U.S., there would be no gun violence in the U.S.  That, however, is not really the point, as we are never going to have a society in which there are no firearms, nor would or should we want to have such a society.

Furthermore, neither I nor John have addressed the issue of gun control from the perspective of those who have actually used guns in defense of themselves, their homes and their loved ones.

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

I will address both of these subjects in future discussions here.

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

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