Congressional Report on the 2nd Amendment

In 1982 Senator Orrin Hatch commissioned a study on the history of the 2nd Amendment.  The results of this study were published in The Right To Keep and Bear Arms. I have never heard of this report before, even though I have been paying attention to 2nd Amendment issues for some time, and I only learned of it in this article by Jill Lapore in the New Yorker, where she writes:

"The assertion that the Second Amendment protects a person’s right to own and carry a gun for self-defense, rather than the people’s right to form militias for the common defense, first became a feature of American political and legal discourse in the wake of the Gun Control Act of 1968, and only gained prominence in the nineteen-seventies. A milestone in its development came when Orrin Hatch, serving on Strom Thurmond’s Senate Judiciary Committee, became chair of the Subcommittee on the Constitution. Hatch commissioned a history of the Second Amendment, resulting in a 1982 report, “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms,” which concluded, “What the Subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear—and long lost—proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms.”

This makes the report an important historical document in the development of social and legal  thought about the right to keep and bear arms in America, and it helps place in context the RKBA in America today.

 

Media Still Wrong About Fast & Furious

This Newsday story still gets it wrong about Operation Fast & Furious:

Fast and Furious was designed to track guns that "straw buyers" purchased in Phoenix area shops in 2009. The goal was to trace the guns and make cases against traffickers supplying firepower to deadly drug cartels in Mexico. But agents quickly lost track of the weapons and many turned up at crime scenes, including the December shootout in Arizona where border agent Terry died.

 Wrong. Fast & Furious was designed to boost the number of weapons confiscated in Mexico that were traceable to U.S. retail firearms dealers, which would then be used as a pretext to adopt stricter gun control laws, especially the reintroduction of the Federal Assault Weapon Ban.

Fast & Furious was not a "bungled investigation", but rather a covert political operation designed to subvert the 2nd Amendment.

Testimony of Joyce Lee Malcom in Favor of H.R.822

This document contains the testimony of Joye Lee Malcolm, Professor at George Mason University school of law comparing the approaches to self defense of the United States and the United Kingdom.

This brief testimony compares two approaches to crime prevention and public safety, the American approach of permitting armed citizens to carry weapons for protection and the British approach of disarming subjects of guns and all other means of defense with the promise the state will protect them.

I have never read a better short summation of the reasons justifying laws allowing citizens to be armed in public than this.

This is a must read document.

Second Amendment - Not Outdated!

I read this letter in the San Jose Mercury News:

Second Amendment is clearly outdated

I read the article on "A treasure chest of stolen weapons" (Page B1, May 27). Every day, without fail, someone gets fatally shot or severely injured from a shooting. The Second Amendment is about as outdated as anything that has to do with the pre-Revolutionary and Civil Wars in this country. Since we no longer need a militia (given the new Department of Homeland Security, which the president just renewed), can anyone in good conscience -- especially the police -- explain why we should not have stricter controls over who owns and uses weapons, and the type of weapons allowed? Surely there will be responses (again) that cars kill more people than guns. Does that justify the lax administration of deadly weapons, especially automatic, semi-automatic and Saturday night specials? Haven't we had enough of this?

Gus Holweger

San Jose

 Outdated, huh? Tell that to people who really needed to be armed, and, thanks to the Second Amendment, had guns to protect themselves:

After the storm, the neighborhood association had to act as law enforcement and emergency response unit as city services collapsed and the police force was unable to protect them.

Citizens organized armed patrols and checked on the elderly. They slept on their porches with loaded shotguns and bolted awake when intruders stumbled on the aluminum cans they had scattered on the sidewalk.

Gunshots rang out for days, sometimes terrifyingly close.

After any major disaster, a flood, a fire, or an earthquake, some people will use the ensuing disorder to help themselves to your money, property, or valuables.  And sometimes the police are not going to be there to help you, or anyone else.  In New Orleans, some police joined the looters. 

Law and order can break down, and if it does, do you have the means to protect yourself?  If so, then thank the Second Amendment.

Weapons On Campus: Disasterous Only for Anti-Gun Bigots

The Texas state senate has passed a bill to allow citizens with CHL licenses to carry on public college campuses.  This article in the UK newspaper The Guardian has this particular bit of silliness:

Democratic senator Judith Zaffirini, who was a student at the University of Texas in 1966 when sniper Charles Whitman killed 12 people and wounded dozens of others, argued against the bill. She predicted mass chaos if police responded to a call and found several people with guns drawn.

Perhaps Ms. Zaffirini was not on campus that day, because not only was the Whitman massacre perhaps the first campus mass killing, it was also one in which armed citizens, some of them students, assisted police by taking Whitman under fire while officers made their way up to Whitmans position and shot him dead, ending the attack.

Around 20 minutes later, once Whitman began facing return fire from the authorities and armed civilians who had brought out their personal firearms to assist police, he used the waterspouts on each side of the tower as gun ports, allowing him to continue shooting largely protected from the gunfire below but also greatly limiting his range of targets. 

And we have this interesting report:

In the course of that 90 minutes, many of Austin’s citizens, including many Vietnam veterans, risked their lives in returning fire against Whitman or rushing onto campus to pull out victims. Many years now, on the anniversary of the massacre, the UT community pays homage to the heroes of that day.

And finally, we have the remembrances of an eyewitness to the events of that day. And guess what? There were guns on campus:

None of the professor’s offices were occupied except for one whose door was open. As I walked down the hall toward that office the sound of a large caliber rifle thundered from that open doorway followed by two men talking. After all the bizarre events of the last few minutes it didn’t seem strange to me when I peeked around the office doorway to see one professor shooting a deer rifle at the top of tower while the other fed him ammunition. It never entered my mind to question why an English professor would have his deer rifle in his office complete with boxes of ammunition. This was Texas after all. Guns were commonplace. From the office windows, we could see the top of the tower clearly. Small puffs of smoke were coming from the rifle of the sniper on the observation deck. The large glass faced clock above the observation deck was shattered from others shooting back at him. The professor ran through several boxes of shells before running out of rounds. My ears were ringing. 

So, "mass chaos" has already happened,  it happened on the UT campus on August 1, 1966, and the police did what police always do: exercise good judgement. No citizen was shot, injured or arrested by the police, except for Whitman.  Indeed, citizen gunfire is credited with suppressing Whitman and limiting his ability to kill more people.  Citizens also used good judgement, not shooting indiscriminately but making sure they had identified the correct target.

Why is there so much hysterical opposition to on-campus concealed carry?  Perhaps the anti-gun Left is afraid that if the last sacred gun-free zone is lost, then what has happened elsewhere will happen there as well: nothing. No increase in violence or suicides.  No people "snapping" and starting a shooting rampage. No police accidentally shooting students because they encounter one who is armed.  And then it will be proved, once again, as it has been proved in every state that has implemented a shall-issue concealed carry permit law, that their arguments are completely false and without merit.

It's Monday...

... so Joan Peterson has another one of her anti-gun screeds out on her blog.  Here is what I posted in response:

If a "majority" of Americans agree with your view that guns should not be carried in public, why has not one single shall-issue law or constitutional carry law been repealed by the vote of this "majority"? 

Also a survey of 600 individuals in five states hardly proves that a majority of American favor your views.

I once asked, on Common Gunsense, what additional gun policies and regulations Joan Peterson advocated, to state them clearly.  She chided me,, saying that I already knew from reading her blog.  Well, I didn't, but it did inspire me to read some of her old posts, and I can easily gather that Joan Peterson is very much against people carrying guns in public, that the spread of laws liberalizing firearm carry is a threat to public safety.  Her entire article is about the proposed concealed carry law in Wisconsin that has a good chance of passing this year with a State Legislature and Governor both controlled by the Republican Party.

Thinking about her thesis, that more should be done to prevent people getting guns who should not have them, I really cannot disagree.  But the Devil is in the details of just what she might propose.  In a future post, I may finally do what I have been thinking of doing to a while: describe what I think would be the ideal gun regulation scheme.  And note that I DO NOT think that there should no regulation at all, but I do think that citizens should be allowed, if they choose, to carry firearms during their daily, lawful, business.

Abthony Portantino on AB 144

Anthony Portantino, (D - La Cañada Flintridge) commenting in the Pasadena Weekly about AB 144, his bill to ban the open carry of firearms:

“It does not take anyone’s rights away for owning a weapon,” he said. “But what it does say is the needless display of automatic firearms on Main Street California does not really have a point other than making a political statement. And should we have weapons be a part of a political discussion?”

So, Mr. Portantino, when you disagree with an opponents political message, you feel that the proper response is to outlaw the message?  The  political conversation here is on the question the rights of citizens to be armed in their daily life, a right that is denied to Californians due to the arbitrary and capricious implementation of the CCW policies in this state. If AB 144 passes, then even Unloaded Open Carry will be denied to us.

And take note his use of "automatic firearms" intended to strike fear in people.  Nobody is open carrying automatic firearms.  They are semi-automatic firearms.

Citizen Ignorance

 

 

The video has been making the rounds of the pro-gun sites, particularly Calguns.  Watching the whole video, I am struck at the level of ignorance the people interviewed have about gun laws.  Unlike gun guys like me, it seems that most people do not think much about the gun issue.  Perhaps this is what makes anti-gun legislation and legislators so common in California: guns are not something that are part of peoples lives.

Until Californians feel like they have a personal stake in gun rights, no ballot box solution will work.  This video double underscores this reality.

What We All Need to Remember From The Heller Decision

As we bask in the glow of the McDonald victory in the Supreme Court last month, and the Heller decision recedes further back in time, it seems that there is a subtle misunderstanding about Heller, that is increasingly common, especially in the anti-gun media, that may harden into "fact".  This is the idea that the 5-4 decision in Heller narrowly affirmed that the 2nd Amendment confers and individual right to bear arms.

But this is NOT true.  All nine justices agreed that the 2nd Amendment confers and individual right to keep and bear arms.   The 5-4 decision was to overturn the Washington, D.C. handgun ban as an unacceptable infringement on the 2nd Amendment.  Let the words of the justices themselves prove this.

Justice Stevens dissenting, page 68 of the opinion:

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an“individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

Justice Breyer, agrees, and restates the view on page 116 of his dissenting opinion:

In interpreting and applying this Amendment,I take as a starting point the following four propositions,based on our precedent and today’s  opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:
(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting).

 All four dissenting justices attached their names to these dissenting opinions, indicating agreement with the principles and legal reasoning contained within them.  Had any justice disagreed with the individual right view, they would surely have been afforded the opportunity to write their own dissenting opinion explaining why their arguments.  None did.

The conclusion that all nine justices find there to be an individual right to keep and bear arms kills the collective right view decisively.  We all need to keep reminding the anti-gun people of this fact.

Some People Just Don't Get It

Even after the Heller decision in 2008, and the McDonald decision last month, some people just don't get it that in the United States, firearm ownership is NOT a privilege, but a civil right.  Rebecca Berg, for example, writing in the Columbia Missourian, states in her July 22, 2010 column:

We don’t need 100 percent gun control, but some increased limits would be a positive step.  Allow handgun bans for the urban areas that need them the most, while allowing states more power to dictate specific regulations.  After all, isn’t the right to bear arms only acceptable when it does not infringe on the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

News flash Ms. Berg, but handgun bans in urban areas are exactly what the Supreme Court has ruled, not once, but twice, are unconstitutional infringements to the civil right to keep arms for self defense. While I agree that my right to keep arms does not indemnify me from having to justify my use of arms in self defense, prohibiting ones right to keep arms for any lawful purpose is not constitutional. 

Your column is full of fail.

McDonald v. Chicago - Oral Arguments Heard Today

Oral arguments were presented before the Supreme Court today in the case McDonald v. Chicago, a suit challenging Chicago's handgun registration ban.  Initial reports on the arguments at the Volokh Conspiracy and at Of Arms and The Law indicate that the Court will likely incorporate the 2nd Amendment via the 14th Amendment.

Where do we go from here?  Back to court of course!  This article explains that the third step in securing the right is to establish the standard of review that courts will use to determine the constitutionality of gun regulations, which will be accomplished in future court cases.  Keep an eye out on the California courts, because there are several cases that have been pending a decision in McDonald.  Once the decision is announced, several of California's gun laws may change quite quickly.

Unloaded Open Carry in California - Activism or Asinine?

In San Jose this week, a man, Sherman Fontano, was arrested while carrying an unloaded .357 Magnum revolver on school grounds. When questioned, he said that he believed that he was not breaking any laws based on what he had heard from others:

After his brothers watched a newscast about the national movement to carry guns in public, they told Sherman "Tony" Fontano he could do that himself. Two San Jose police officers also said it would be OK.

The "national movement" mentioned above refers to the practice of individuals carrying their firearms in a holster unconcealed while they go about their daily business. OpenCarry.org is a web site that explains what this movement is attempting to accomplish, and how people can participate in open carry events.

The intended purpose of the open carry movement is to

"naturalize the presence of guns, which means that guns become ordinary, omnipresent, and expected. Over time, the gun becomes a symbol of ordinary personhood."

This intention flies in the face of more conventional views in California, where gun owners are a minority, making up only 21% of the population. In San Jose, one of the more anti-gun areas in the state, most people feel that guns are the cause of violence, and anyone carrying a gun in public is probably a criminal, resulting in the quick report of Mr. Fontano carrying a gun on school grounds.

Many non-gun owners would be surprised to learn that it is in fact legal to carry an unloaded, unconcealed firearm in many parts of the state. It is illegal to carry a loaded firearm in most places, unless one has a CCW (Carry Concealed Weapon) permit. These permits are almost impossible to obtain in Santa Clara county. In 2007 only 170 permits were in effect in the county, which has a population of 1.7 million, an issue rate of 0.01%.

In other states open carry of loaded firearms is legal without a permit, and concealed weapons permits are issued freely to any citizen that passes a background check and meets other objective criteria, such as firearms training and shooting range qualification with the firearm. Open carry advocates in those states carry openly on a daily basis to further the educational goal of OpenCarry.org, and for self protection.

Gun rights activists would like to liberalize California gun laws in a similar fashion, and some of these people think that open carry is an effective means to educate the public that they need not fear armed law abiding citizens. But is open carry really the best way to educate and persuade the public to change the gun laws, or is it a short sighted, ineffective tactic of gun activists that will ultimately prove to be counter-productive? Before attempting to give my answer to that question, let's review the law.

Standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and everything that follows in not to be construed as legal advice. If you want to participate in unloaded open carry (UOC) events in California, you would be wise to consult an attorney for guidance and advice.

Everything that I am going to mention about California gun law is based on the excellent book by John Machtinger, "How to Own a Gun & Stay Out of Jail - California Edition". In my opinion every California gun owner should read and understand everything in this book. The definitive pace to find out about California gun laws is the actual Penal Code. Don't take my word for anything, read it for yourself!

Loaded guns are covered by PC 12031. Loaded firearms are prohibited in most public places:

12031.  (a) (1) A person is guilty of carrying a loaded
firearm when he or she carries a loaded firearm on his 
or her person or in a vehicle while in any public place 
or on any public street in an incorporated city or 
in any public place or on any public street in a 
prohibited area of unincorporated territory.

The sharp reader, however, will have noted that carrying a loaded firearm is permitted in unincorporated territory that is not a prohibited area. Prohibited areas are defined by individual counties, and citizens must check to ensure that they are in the proper areas to carry a loaded weapon. These are almost always rural areas where hunting, fishing, and target shooting is allowed.

Concealed weapons are covered under PC 12025. Concealed firearms are prohibited in most circumstances:

12025.  (a) A person is guilty of carrying a concealed firearm when
he or she does any of the following:
(1) Carries concealed within any vehicle which is under his or her
control or direction any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable
of being concealed upon the person.
(2) Carries concealed upon his or her person any pistol, revolver,
or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(3) Causes to be carried concealed within any vehicle in which he
or she is an occupant any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable
of being concealed upon the person.

But there is a very important exception to the above provision:

(f) Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed
within the meaning of this section.

Hence we get to the full legal reasoning for UOC in the state of California: loaded and concealed weapons are illegal where most people live, while unloaded and unconcealed weapons in a belt holster are not. Police have the right to stop an openly carrying person to verify that the weapon being carried is indeed unloaded. Further case law has established that it is legal to carry loaded magazines or ammunition as long as it is not attached to the gun in any manner. Most UOC advocates carry loaded magazines in case they need to protect themselves. But having to load a weapon first greatly degrades the self defense utility of a firearm.

Given that UOC is legal, is it a good idea? As Mr. Fontano learned, carrying a handgun around San Jose will get you a lot of unwanted attention from the police, and the usefulness of an unloaded gun for self defense is limited, so why would anyone want to do it? Self proclaimed members of the open carry movement in California do it because they believe that "A Right Unexercised is a Right Lost", because they want to educate the public about law abiding citizens carrying firearms, and ultimately liberalize the gun laws of California.

But is UOC effective activism? Examining the California forum on OpenCarry.org one finds many stories of individual experiences and open carry events. But many postings involve the how to conduct oneself during the inevitable stop by police, or ensuring that the open carrier does not enter a school zone. One thread in which an open carry event is being planned, Santana Row in San Jose is suggested:

If you want to go for a large public place (which gives us the chance to educate) then how about some place inside Santana Row? I believe (Please check for yourself) that it is outside any GFSZ.

Walking up and down the sidewalks would get a lot of attention.

GFSZ stands for Gun Free School Zone in this message.

Santana Row met with some approval, as illustrated in this message:

Great idea. This location should be OUR next meet. I will google map the location and see if I can find any restricted areas. If we're clear of GFSZ, but is alittle out of the 1,000 ft mark, I'll print out directions from our location to the school to show LEO we're in the clear. This weekend should be the meet since it's getting cooler by the day.

we're open for suggestions.

But UOC is a legal minefield in California, as the nest post shows:

I would recommend/strongly urge you not to bring a map of the school zones. The burden of proof that you are in violation of 626.9 is on the courts, bringing a map does the work for them, plus if you were to accidentally violate the GFSZ act, you would have zero defense if the map was found. No good can come from bringing a map with you, just know your routes before you leave.

Santana row is a great idea, 626.9 permitting.

PC 626.9 is the section of the California Penal Code prohibiting guns (loaded or not) within 1000 feet of a school. Mr. Fortano probably wishes he had head of this before open carrying himself. This post describes other tactics to use when open carrying to avoid legal repercussions:

For the benefit of all the new people attending, please sterile-carry.

sterile-carry: The act of having no identifying material on your person. No drivers license, state ID, bank card (carry cash), library card, etc.

Keep it in the glove box.

What was the effect of this open carry meet? Later postings give an indication:

Just got back, we had one carrier and about six non-carriers. I handed out a flyer to a lady who stopped by our group and asked for money for some group. It wasn't as crowded as I thought it would be, parking was pretty easy to find. Still, lots of people but I didn't hear or see anybody react. Two new members showed up. It was a nice day, although everywhere we went there were people singing, making it somewhat hard to chat. I guess worse things could happen.

This event happened on November 28th, 2009, and Santana Row in San Jose, one of the most popular shopping malls in Santa Clara county. There was not one mention of it in the San Jose Mercury News, on local television stations, or on local radio stations.

Great activism, huh? But the proof that these people are dilettantes is provided by the following post:

If we're going to have a meet, we shouldn't tell everyone on open forum when and where until after it happens. Wouldn't want any suprise guests or government funded party crashers showing up.

Real activists would publicize their events to ensure that OC'ers, the press, and the police are all there in as large a number as possible. OpenCarry.org has numerous postings on open carry events held in other states that had many attendees, carriers and non-carriers alike, with press coverage. Real activists want to confront the police, possibly be arrested, and have the arrest shown on the evening news, along with a sound bite from a press release or from a member.

In my opinion UOC in the context of California gun laws, and the political climate, is stupid. And the way the open carry people on OpenCarry.org conduct themselves shows that they are not serious about real activism. Frustrated by the "may issue" CCW laws in California and the restrictive issue policies of local sheriffs departments, they are grasping at straws to have a shadow of the same privileges afforded to citizens of other states. UOC is neither an effective form of carry for self defense, nor is it easily taken seriously as civil rights activism.

I think that is is telling that the only mention of the open carry "movement" in the local press was the arrest of Mr. Fortano, whose arrest on school property is NOT going to win any friends for concealed carry law reform (very much needed in California), open carry, or gun rights in general.

California is at a very critical juncture. Incorporation of the 2nd Amendment against the states may happen next year, at which time many California laws will be challenged in the courts. Minorities usually do not fare well at the ballot box, and 2009 shows this to be true with the passage of ever more restrictive guns laws, like AB 962. Open carry advocates should tone it down, and wait for the possibility of real results in courts in 2011 and beyond. If incidents like Mr. Fortano's become more common, I could believe that Sacremento could outlaw UOC as well as current CCW laws rather than reforming the mess that California gun laws have become.

Unloaded Open Carry in California? Asinine.

San Jose Man Arrested for Unload Open Carry

As reported in the San Jose Mercury News, Sherman Fontano was arrested to carrying an unloaded .357 Magnum revolver.

Fontano, who seems to think that this is all a big misunderstanding, is about to get a lesson in the arcane, convoluted, and sometimes nonsensical gun laws in California. His plight should serve as an object lesson to all people who own or are contemplating purchasing a gun in California: know and follow the gun laws in this state, or you will be sorry.

California gun laws are complex, containing provisions surprising even to long-time gun owners. Many gun owners do not study the laws regulating guns, relying on the advice of friends or relatives, which is often outdated or incorrect. I am not a lawyer, and nothing I write in the post should be considered legal advice, but one can read about California gun laws in the excellent book "How to Own a Gun & Stay Out of Jail - California Edition", by John Machtinger, who is a lawyer. California gun owners, in my opinion, should read and understand everything in this book. My statements below about the substance of California gun laws are based on Machtinger's book.

But nobody should take my word for ANYTHING! Read the book, or better yet, read the Penal Code sections for yourself.

If Fontano had read this book, he would have understood that everything that a gun owner can legally do with a gun, even possess it inside their own home, is a listed exception to the law that states that possession of a concealed firearm is a crime, and to the law that states that possession of a loaded firearm is a crime.

Fontano's gun was not loaded at the time he was arrested, so he did not break that law. But he was in possession of a concealed firearm (i.e. firearm in a waistband is considered concealed). California law defines a concealed weapon to be a weapon carried on one's person or in one's vehicle with any part of the firearm concealed from view. Belt holsters are explicitly exempted from this provision, but other garments are not exempted, including the part of Fontano's pants that covered a portion of his .357 Magnum.

The exception that allows Californians to carry their legally owned firearms outside of their homes states that the firearm must be unloaded, and secured inside a locked container. Firearms transported in this way, either in a car, or by a person on foot, or on any other private conveyance, is not a concealed weapon.

So, why did Fontano think he could carry his pistol legally? Fontano had heard of unloaded open carry from relatives:

After his brothers watched a newscast about the national movement to carry guns in public, they told Sherman "Tony" Fontano he could do that himself. Two San Jose police officers also said it would be OK.

The "national movement" referred to above is the practice of law abiding citizens carrying firearms openly to exercise their Second Amendment rights, and to demonstrate to the non-gunowning public that people with guns are not automatically criminals. The web site OpenCarry.org explains what this movement intends to accomplish and how members go about their open carry activities.

Fontano's problem was that his information was incomplete. As explained extensively on the web site OpenCarry.org, it is up to the individual to know and follow the gun laws of the state in which they openly carry weapons. In California, one needs to be especially careful because of all the exceptions that may apply to where a person may possess or carry a weapon. While unloaded open carry (UOC) is legal in many places in California, carrying a firearm into a school zone is not, and Fontano was arrested by police while carrying his gun in a school zone.

School zones comprise the school grounds and encompass the surrounding neighborhood up to 1000 feet from school property. Second, school zones apply to most any school: K-12, public and private, and college campuses. It is up to the person carrying to know the school zone boundaries, and either avoid them, or secure their firearms prior to entry. Fontano, in his ignorance, failed to do so, and was thus arrested.

Fontano can't believe the fuss his morning walk with his never-been-fired Magnum has caused.

I can. Gun owners, at 21%, are a minority in this state. Many people think that anyone who owns a gun is a potential threat to other citizens, and anyone carrying a gun in public, who is not a police officer, must be a criminal. These views are a large part of the reason California gun laws are so complex that even District Attorneys and police officers are often confused by them, and why the gun laws are becoming more, not less, restrictive, as illustrated by the signing of AB 962 into law this year.

Fontano, with his "never-been-fired Magnum" is obviously not a dangerous person, but he is a careless one. While charges have not yet been filed, he may fined himself subject to jail time, be prevented from owning firearms for ten years, or perhaps even for life. His education on the extent of the gun laws in California may well prove to be expensive.

NRA Brief in Support of Chicago Plaintiffs

The NRA has filed a brief in support of the plaintiffs in the Chicago gun ban case, and I have added the link to my sidebar on the case.

In reading both this and the petitioners briefs, I find it fascinating that so much of the arguments in favor of the 14th Amendment protecting the right to bear arms refers to events in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War during Reconstruction. It seems that southerners wanted their newly freed slaves disarmed, but that northerners saw that denial of arms left these people defenseless. From the brief:

Summarizing this history, the status of the
right to keep and bear arms during the drafting and
ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment is
unmistakable. It was viewed as a fundamental right
in the most literal sense: The foundation necessary
to secure all of the other rights of free citizens.

Gun rights were seen as the means for a minority to protect themselves from a hostile majority, and to help secure their civil rights. It seems that the origins of gun control in the United States are indeed racist.

Petitioner's Opening Brief

The opening brief by the petitioners in the Chicago gun case to be argued before the Supreme Court is not available here.

California Roster of Approved Forearms: A Creeping Handgun Ban?

As readers of this blog probably know, California regulates handguns very strongly, requiring manufacturers to submit handguns for safety testing before they can sell a model in this state. Handguns that are approved for sale are posted on the California Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale.

This list does not by any means include all of the handgun models introduced by manufacturers in a given year, and it is often characterized as a creeping handgun ban. But do statistics bear this claim out? Are the number of handguns available for sale increasing or decreasing?

It turns out that it is indeed possible to determine the number of guns approved for sale over time, and this I have done in the chart at the top of this article.

As can be seen, over the last three years the number of handguns available for sale in California has been steadily increasing, so the Roster is not a creeping handgun ban.

However, this chart only shows the number of handguns approved for sale at any one time, but not the "churn" in the list. Handguns are dropped from the list when their approval expires. But the reasons for the expiration are varied. Perhaps the manufacturer has ceased production of that model, or perhaps the manufacturer has decided not to pay the renewal fee to continue the listing.

And nothing on this chart indicates the number of handguns offered for sale in the United States, but that have not been approved by the DOJ, or the number of guns introduced in any given year that are available for sale outside of California that have not yet been approved, or that have never been submitted for approval.

All that I can conclude is that, lacking further data, the DOJ Roster is not manifestly a creeping handgun ban, working over time to eliminate the handguns from California. But it is a handgun limiter, acting like a water saving device to slow down the introduction of handguns into the California market. When combined with the California assault weapon ban and the magazine capacity limit, the handguns available to a California resident are very much curtailed when compared to many other states.

2nd Amendment - An Individual Right

Even in this post-Heller United States, I constantly come across the view that the 2nd Amendment is a collective right, not and individual right. While answering that post I came across one of the best summaries of legal decisions and scholarship establishing that the 2nd Amendment is indeed an individual right, courtesy of The View From North Central Idaho. I encourage everyone to read Joe Huffman's blog.

I'm Back.

After a very busy summer in which I simply had no energy to think through additional posts, I have returned to this blog.

And it seems that the world has changed. Before the tone of the blog was concentrated on gun rights, and these issues are still important, even as AB 962, SB 585, and SB 41 sit on Governor Schwarzenegger's desk for signature or veto.

But it seems that I really should contribute to the biggest debate of the day: healthcare reform. I will do so in upcomming posts as it now seems that Congress has gotten off the dime and has bills ready for debate.

I will also be keep posting on the progress of McDonald v. Chicago, now accepted for argument before the Supreme Court, as well as more local gun rights cases here in California.

I hope those few of you who have been following my blog are still around, and that new readers will find my posts enlightening and informative.

Amended Complaint Filed in Pena Case

In Pena v. Cid, the case challenging the California DOJ Handgun Roster, the plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint. The new complaint may be read here.

Heller II - I'm Way Behind the Curve on This One

I have added a sidebar section to list events related to the second Heller case, one taking on the new gun registration law that the District of Columbia enacted in the wake of the first Heller decision.

Although first filed in July of 2008, I have listed an amended complaint because that is what is available on the lead attorney's web site. I will try to keep up with events as they happen.

This case is important to California residents because much of the D.C. law is based on or similar to California firearms law. Should all or parts of the D.C. law be struck down, then that would indicate what might happen in future and current California cases.