Sharyl Attkisson resigns
CBS investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson, who broke the "Fast and Furious" story, has resigned from the network after 21 years of service.
"Attkisson, who has been with CBS News for two decades, had grown frustrated with what she saw as the network's liberal bias, an outsized influence by the network's corporate partners and a lack of dedication to investigative reporting, several sources said. She increasingly felt like her work was no longer supported and that it was a struggle to get her reporting on air."
Glenn Reynolds on a well regulated militia
In USA Today.
"Even short of revolutions and coups, the militia had a different character in ordinary law enforcement than professionals possess. If called upon to enforce an unpopular law, or to enforce the law in an oppressive or unpopular way, the militia could drag its feet and fail to perform. (In this sense, the militia was like a jury, which is free to acquit even a guilty defendant if it thinks conviction would be unjust. In fact, Yale Law Professor Akhil Amar has likened the militia to jurors with guns because, like the jury, it was an institution made up of the people, through which the government must act, and one not susceptible to the kinds of corruption besetting professional institutions)."
"But although the militia survives in vestigial form in the statute books, as a functional institution, it no longer exists. For law enforcement, the militia has been replaced by professional police, with SWAT teams, armored vehicles and Nomex coveralls; for military purposes, the militia has been replaced by the National Guard, which despite a thin patina of state control is fundamentally a federal military force."
"But this departure from the system the Framers set up has encouraged more intrusive law enforcement at home, and more military action abroad. So I'll ask you: If a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, then are we insecure? Or unfree? Or both?"
Thoughts on originalism
Will Baude posts his thoughts on the subject at the Volokh Conspiracy. The debate in the comments is fully as interesting as the post. E.g., if we were not meant to be bound by the social contract embodied in the original Constitution, as the Framing generation saw it, why were the requirements for amending it made so strict, requiring not just majority agreement to the changes, but very nearly a consensus? (2/3 of both Houses + 3/4 of the States).
Some Connecticut police refusing to enforce AW law
[UPDATE: several commentors have noted they cannot find any Connecticut Peace Officers Association online... nor can I. I've emailed the person who emailed me on this, asking for info. His indication had been that the article (which he attached) would be online in a few days at http://ezinearticles.com/. Until he responds, or does not respond, I'd treat this as a possible hoax. I would have done more digging except that when I posted I was on a plane, as part of 4,000-miles-in-36-hours trip.]
[FURTHER UPDATE: Actually, update to an update. I was absolutely sure this was a hoax and there was no story, when the story appeared online. I'd checked with ezinearticles.com, and they'd said the author was not enrolled to post there -- I guess they were wrong. Now, this doesn't cure the problem that the CPOA can't be found, but at least there is a story.]
[UPDATED UPDATE: one of the commentors, down toward the very end, notes there is a Wikipedia article on the CPOA ... but it was created this afternoon, by the author of the article. Yep, the article may be real but it's a hoax.]
Tyler Jackson has emailed me an interesting story, soon to appear online (I'll link to it once it does)-- the gist is that the head of the Connecticut Peace Officers' Assn has released an open letter stating that the police will not "be party to the oppression of the people of the state by enforcing an unconstitutional law." So far 250 LEOs have cosigned the letter.
The CT law required the registration of AWs, with a deadline for doing so, and it appears that the vast majority of AW owners have simply refused. So now the State faces massive resistance, and some portion, perhaps a large portion, of police refusing to enforce.
9th Circuit website on Peruta v. San Diego
The Ninth has created its own webpage devoted to Peruta, which struck down California's "may issue" for concealed carry, combined with its complete ban on handgun open carry.
Richards case reversed
CalGuns Foundation's press release notes the event. This is their and SAF's suit against the sheriff of Yolo County, over restrictive "may issue" permit policies. The 9th Circuit (same panel as in the earlier case) reversed the trial court ruling, in favor of the sheriff, in an unpublished opinion that applies its earlier, pro-2A case.
Now, this sheriff can ask for en banc in his case.
These guys claim that DHS has rated them the No. 1 training establishment in the world. I don't know if that is false, or if DHS has insane rating methods.
There was a reason why conservatives in the DC area, when leaving for another part of the nation, would refer to it as "going to America."
Then there was the time when then-Senator Manny Lujan (R-N.M.) sent a letter to a constituent in New Mexico and had it returned by the DC Post Office, for having insufficient postage to go to a foreign country.
Terrorists armed with knives kill 29 in China
Story here. In another account, one of the knives is described as two feet long, which would make it more of a short sword.
Yet another dumb crook
Man comes to courthouse security checkpoint, empties pockets for the x-ray machine, dropping a baggie of cocaine into the tray. When questioned, he explains the pants he is wearing are not his. Oh, and he already had a felony warrant out for him.
Illinois CCW permit issued!
Word is that Illinois is mailing the first of its CCW permits today; 5,000 have been approved, with something over 40,000 more in process.
Calif. AG moves to intervene in Peruta
Very strange. San Diego asked her to intervene at the trial court stage, and she did nothing. The trial court ruled, and she did nothing. The appeal was briefed and argued, and she did nothing. Now the appeals court rules against San Diego, the sheriff decides not to appeal and to issue permits on a "may issue" basis, and she moves to intervene in the case. It's a bit late.
Since the time to move for rehearing lapses, I think, today, and a motion must allow time for opposition and reply, I can only make two senses to it. (1) A publicity ploy (most likely) and/or (2) hope to be granted intervenor rights in time to file a petition for cert.. I think (1) is by far the most probable. Get turned down and say "I tried."
UPDATE: Here's the motion. California seeks to intervene in order to ask for en banc review. There might be another reason for the motion. Any judge of the Ninth can call for such review, and has another week in which to do so. This could be meant to alert the judges to the case and motivate them to ask for it. Although I'd assume this ruling was carried in all the mass media in San Francisco, so it's hardly likely the judges are uninformed here.
Quaere: since the Defendants have announced they will issue CCW permits to all law-abiding folks, is there even a "case or controversy" left, or is the case moot?
ATF and reporting lost guns
"It is clear that agency rules were not followed in many of the incidents, which show at least 49 guns were lost or stolen nationwide between 2009 and 2013."
"The newly released ATF reports show that between 2009 and 2013, agents lost their guns or had them stolen in at least 45 incidents -- with a couple of the cases involving the loss of three firearms.
It is unclear if the records include "missing" guns, a separate category used by the agency.
Most of the lost weapons were handguns, but there also were at least two assault rifles stolen. Typically the reports do not indicate what happened to the unrecovered guns. However, in a November 2008 incident, the gun may have wound up in Mexico, according to the report."
"The report cited examples similar to those in the documents obtained by the Journal Sentinel, with agents leaving weapons in public bathrooms, atop their vehicles, on an airplane and one in a shopping cart."
Via Katie Pavlich
Nikki Goeser story online
Right here. She is a CCW holder whose husband was murdered because she (being law abiding) had to leave her gun in a car before going into a "gun free" zone.
ATF testimony on botched storefronts
For tomorrow's hearing. It's remarkable for saying almost nothing. And for being delivered by the Deputy Director rather than the Director.
NRO on self defense
""Stand your ground" is not a principle that endorses vigilantism, the quest to enforce the law unilaterally, but instead a principle that declares that public spaces do not belong to violent aggressors. This represents not the abrogation of law but rather the use of law to more justly determine the rights of aggressor and victim, granting greater rights to the victim and thus bringing the statutory law closer in line with natural law. When the state, by contrast, mandates that citizens retreat from aggression (a concept fraught with practical difficulties and dangers), then it does not limit violence, it instead empowers unlawful aggression.
. . . . . .
The Left has to change the subject to vigilantism because the case for self-defense is so manifestly obvious. Is the state respecting the fundamental rights of citizens -- including their right to life -- if it mandates passivity in the face of violent attack? Of course not. It does, however, respect the right to life when it empowers self-defense while also prosecuting those rare few who seek to mask murderous intent behind a self-defense pretext."