A List Member Replies: In yesterday's mailing I included a link to an article from Britain, where police refuse to include a facial birthmark in the description of a suspect or to allow it to be seen in a lineup. I commented, "How much worse can it get in Britain?" A list member replied with this article: A mother who was punched to the floor in her own home by yobs was stunned when police advised her not to call officers to her house - because it would 'escalate' the problem. Nikki Collen, 39, begged officers for help after a thug kicked in her front door and punched her to the floor in her hallway. After her attacker fled, Nikki rang Warwickshire Police who promised to send an officer to her home in Kenilworth. But an hour later she received a phone call from a woman police officer who told her it would be better if police did not attend because it might inflame the situation.... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1216679/Thugs-punch-mother-floor-home-police-tell-best-dont-visit-escalate-problem.html --- More on McDonald v. Chicago: In orders just released by the Supreme Court, the justices have granted review in 12 new cases for the fall term, including a major sequel to the D.C. v. Heller Second Amendment decision of 2008. At issue is whether the individual right to bear arms declared in Heller applies - or is incorporated, to use the legal term - against state, rather than just federal laws restricting that right. The case, which will likely be argued early next year, is McDonald v. Chicago, a challenge to Chicago's handgun ban. Significantly, the Court did not act on other petitions raising similar issues, including Maloney v. Rice, an incorporation case in which Justice Sonia Sotomayor ruled while on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Presumably those cases will await a ruling in the Chicago dispute... http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/09/supreme-court-grants-chicago-handgun-ban-case.html ... Most court observers say they think that the five justices who recognized the individual right will also find that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments, a move that could spark challenges of state and local laws governing gun registration, how and when the weapons can be carried, and storage requirements... The decision to accept the Chicago gun case was a natural progression from the decision in Heller, which split the court on ideological grounds. The liberal justices said the Second Amendment guaranteed only a collective right for gun ownership to maintain militias. If the amendment is extended, the next question will be about the kind of restrictions allowed. The Heller opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia said some requirements would be constitutional, but it was not specific. Gura hopes for a "definitive ruling" on Chicago's restrictions and said he thinks that at a minimum the court would strike the same kind of handgun ban it found objectionable in Washington. But gun-control advocates played down the importance of the case, saying few states or municipalities had such restrictive laws. Only a handful of states do not protect gun ownership in their constitutions, and 33 filed a brief advocating that the court find that the Second Amendment applies to them... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/30/AR2009093001723.html ... Most legal scholars expect the court to apply the Second Amendment to the states. But many of them are urging the court to take an unusual route to that result. Rather than continuing to rely on the 14th Amendment's due process clause, the court should, these scholars say, look to the amendment's "privileges or immunities" clause, which says that "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." There is some evidence that the amendment's writers specifically wanted the clause to apply to allow freed slaves to have guns to defend themselves. Scholars on the right and left believe, moreover, that the clause could play a role in protecting rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. A decision that the Second Amendment applies to the states would not answer most questions about what kinds of gun laws are vulnerable to challenges under the Second Amendment. In the Heller decision, Justice Antonin Scalia seemed to identify quite a few kinds of laws that are presumptively constitutional... http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/us/01scotus.html?ref=us ... And just how "huge" are the implications of the McDonald case? If the high court rules that the Second Amendment is incorporated as a limit on state and local governments, as it is now a limit on the federal government, the floodgates will open for legal challenges to onerous gun control statutes and ordinances all over the map. State legislatures will have to seriously consider whether existing laws and proposed legislation infringe on the individual rights of citizens. In essence, an affirmative ruling on incorporation that strikes down the Chicago ban would be what California-based pro-gun attorney Chuck Michel once called a "full employment act for attorneys." http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m9d30-Supreme-Court-accepts-SAF-challenge-to-Chicago-handgun-ban ...It should also be kept in mind that a ruling in favor of incorporation will be far from a "knockout blow" for gun rights. Such a ruling would serve only to make the Heller ruling apply everywhere, and it has become rather apparent that Heller will be interpreted as permitting nearly every gun law short of an outright ban. Still, this is an important case, and bears close watching. Keep up with it at ChicagoGunCase.com. http://www.examiner.com/x-2581-St-Louis-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m9d30-Supreme-Court-to-decide-2nd-Amendment-incorporation-issue The Supreme Court could ignite a vigorous new fight over state and local gun controls across the nation when it rules on a challenge to Chicago's handgun ban... If the court rules that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms doesn't allow the city's outright handgun ban, it could lead to legal challenges to less-restrictive laws that limit who may own guns, whether firearms must be registered and even how they must be stored. The court last year moved in the direction of voiding tough gun control laws when it struck down a prohibition on handguns in the District of Columbia, a city with unique federal status. Now the court will decide whether that ruling should apply to local and state laws as well. The court will hear arguments in the case early next year, and a ruling probably would follow in the spring... (Overturn Chicago's handgun ban and incorporate the Second Amendment? I'll bet on it. Overturn registration and licensing? I'm not holding my breath. Facilitate lawsuits for objective licensing standards? By all means. Overturn the National Firearms Act and "assault weapon" bans? Color me skeptical.) http://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2009/10/01/supreme_court_takes_a_fresh_look_at_handgun_laws?page=full Two other cases on the subject - one the aforementioned New York nunchaku possession case, and the other an NRA lawsuit against Chicago arguing for 2nd Amendment incorporation on slightly different grounds, were not granted certiorari today. Not all rights recognized in the Constitution get this treatment. Gura and Sigale will argue that the individual's right to keep and bear arms is "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" and "deeply rooted in our nation's history and traditions." Most observers, both pro-gun and anti-gun, agree that the facts support both those assertions. While shooters should not be overconfident, it would be hard to find an expert on Constitutional law who would bet money that the Supreme Court will find against incorporation. Next, we'll look at the arguments being made in MacDonald v. Chicago [sic], followed by predictions of what Chicago and Illinois will look like after the decision - win or lose. http://www.examiner.com/x-17034-Chicago-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m9d30-Supreme-Court-will-decide-whether-the-2nd-Amendment-protects-Chicago-gun-rights?cid=exrss-Chicago-Gun-Rights-Examiner Here is what we can look forward to in the coming months... Our opening brief is due November 16. The city's brief is then due December 16. Our reply brief is due January 15. The case is expected to be argued in February, with a decision expected by the end of June, 2010. http://www.chicagoguncase.com/ From the Pages of the Chicago Sun-Times: The U.S. Supreme Court's decision Wednesday to hear a challenge to Chicago's strictest-in-the-nation handgun ban likely means the other holster is ready to fall on the ban, advocates on both sides of the issue seemed to agree Wednesday. "A year from now there will not be a Chicago handgun ban," said Alan Gura, the attorney representing the gun owners fighting the ban... At a news conference in Chicago Wednesday, Gura predicted the crime rate will drop in Chicago if handguns are legalized again, because, he said, would-be burglars would opt not to break into homes for fear owners could be armed... Of the 511 murders that happened in Chicago last year, 402 happened outdoors and the vast majority involved one gang member shooting another gang member, according to police statistics. Gura admitted local governments have more rights to restrict gun possession outdoors... http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1799122,chicago-gun-ban-supreme-court-093009.article And from the Pages of the Chicago Tribune: ...along with my reading of that case from last year - District of Columbia et. al. v. Heller - leads me to conclude that the court will rule against the Chicago handgun ban... http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2009/09/predicition-chicagos-handgun-ban-is-going-down.html --- The Beat Goes On: Owning a gun is a constitutional right. But some gun owners are fired up and say they can't get the ammunition they need, because there's a nationwide ammunition shortage. Some shops have been limiting the amount of ammunition customers can buy. So what's driving this shortage? ... Blogs are buzzing with theories. Some say the shortage started the day President Obama was elected. Others believe there's a very real possibility that some people are serious about preparing for a revolution. Most gun shop owners will say it's tough to keep their shelves stocked with ammunition these days. But is it from a lack of supply or are people simply hoarding? Ed McElhiney says he's sold more ammunition this year than he has in all the 21 years he's been in business. "Obama came in, and like Clinton, he sold an awful lot of rifles for us. People don't trust him. If he doesn't change the law, Pelosi will. The whole administration from top to bottom is anti gun," he said. While President Obama was a proponent of gun control prior to being elected, he has since said he's a believer in the Second Amendment, and has not tried to limit or change that. The only things that have changed are the availability of the ammunition and the price. It's nearly doubled, and in some cases tripled. http://wbztv.com/local/ammunition.shortage.government.2.1219644.html --- Black Man with a Gun: In yesterday's column about the documentary by Max Lemus on gun rights activists, I mentioned he was interviewing "Black Man with a Gun" Kenn Blanchard... Here's the new raw footage segment. As you can see, Mr. Blanchard has not changed his approach, and is as candid, dynamic and persuasive as ever. (And he sure presents a dilemma for the SPLC, doesn't he?) It's exciting watching this project as it develops. I'm hooked and can't wait for more. I understand we can expect to see something from Charlotte Gun Rights Examiner Paul Valone in the near future. http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m9d29-Documentary-features-Black-Man-with-a-Gun --- Texas Prosecutor Blames CHL Law for Increase in Shootings by Officers?: ... How "the shooting of an unarmed resident" factors into more citizens exercising their right to keep and bear arms is left unsaid. Perhaps if we explored what happened... I see. Not only unarmed but falsely accused. And with the temerity to react to his mother being assaulted. So, Donna: We know that Texas law regulates the possession and carrying of firearms. We know that both Texas and federal edicts define certain classifications of people as "prohibited persons," ineligible by law to even touch a gun. What's this new flexibility you speak of? Are concealed carry permit holders getting into more and more violent encounters with the cops? How many have been shot, and were they the ones initiating force? Perhaps you could clarify and explain to the public you ostensibly serve just why you think their ability to defend themselves puts them at greater risk from government employees they presumably pay to protect them? You "don't want to blame the Legislature," Donna, so what (or who) are you blaming? ... (It's worth noting that Texas has also relaxed the requirements for unlicensed carry in vehicles. Still, the issue appears to be why officers are responding more aggressively toward those they are sworn to protect and serve.) http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m9d30-Does-prosecutor-blame-gun-rights-for-police-shootings --- Arizona Restaurant Carry Gets National Attention: ...Under the law, backed by the National Rifle Association, the 138,350 people with concealed-weapons permits in Arizona will be allowed to bring their guns into bars and restaurants that haven't posted signs banning them. Those carrying the weapons aren't allowed to drink alcohol. The new law has Shields and other bar owners and workers wondering: What's going to happen when guns are allowed in an atmosphere filled with booze and people with impaired judgment? ... (I don't know - what happens when openly armed police officers are "allowed into an atmosphere filled with booze and people with impaired judgment"? Naturally, all the publicity is about bars, with no mention that most efforts, for several years, were merely to remove the statutory ban on carrying in restaurants that happen to serve alcohol. Bars are included primarily because Arizona's liquor code fails to distinguish between bars and licensed restaurants. No mention is made that many states that fail to ban firearms in licensed establishments do not ban the carriers from consuming alcohol. Do all these business owners whining about firearms administer sobriety tests before serving alcohol? Statistically, the liability from a patron trying to drive home under the influence is much greater.) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33074414/ns/us_news-life The parents of a bicyclist who was struck and killed by a drunken driver in December 2006 have settled their lawsuit against the driver and the bar that served her for slightly more than $1 million. Berky's agreed to pay Barbara Nordlund and Robert L'Ecuyer $1 million in the death of Paul L'Ecuyer, and Melissa Arrington's insurance company agreed to pay $25,000 on Monday - one day before the case was to go to trial in Pima County [AZ] Superior Court, said plaintiff's attorney John Osborne... http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/311340 Today, a new law takes effect in Arizona allowing citizens with concealed weapon permits to take their defensive firearms into places that serve alcohol provided they are not drinking. Anti-gun groups have worked hard to perpetuate the idea that these individuals will proceed to get drunk and misuse their guns. With some, they have succeeded... But, is there any validity to these concerns? Forty-one states, including Arizona, now have some provision in their laws for law abiding citizens to carry guns in places that serve alcohol. Some exclude bona fide bars, some require less than 50% of a restaurant's profits to come from alcohol, one requires open carry. Most, but not all, have a stipulation that the armed individual not drink at all, though some specify only that they not be impaired (just like when driving a car). Of all of these states, not one has had a problem... In six months, people in Arizona will wonder what all the fuss was about and the anti-gun pundits will be off spreading lies on another issue or maybe the same ones as Ohio also considers allowing concealed handgun licensees to carry where alcohol is served. How many times can they cry wolf before people stop listening? http://www.examiner.com/x-2206-Cleveland-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m9d30-Drunks-with-guns-a-valid-concern --- Arkansas AG Rules Church-Carry Ban Valid: An opinion released today by the Arkansas Attorney General says "no." Like most states, Arkansas allows adults to obtain a permit to carry a concealed handgun for lawful purposes, after passing a background check and safety class. Like a few states, Arkansas prohibits licensed carry in "Any church or other place of worship." In short, the AG opinion says that there is no Free Exercise violation because the statute does not (at least facially) hinder the exercise of religion. Further, the statute is one of general applicability, and does not single out religion for different treatment, because the Arkansas concealed handgun license (CHL) statute also bans CHL in some other locations. The opinion suggests that what these disparate places have in common is that they are likely to be crowded. There is no Establishment Clause violation because the CHL in churches ban does not appear, facially, to favor one sect or denomination over another. (The AG opinion and this post both use "churches" to include synagogues, mosques, and all other houses of worship of various religions.) ... http://volokh.com/2009/09/29/does-chl-ban-in-churches-violate-the-first-amendment/ http://ag.arkansas.gov/opinions/docs/2009-080.pdf --- Rule Four Reminder: A Charleston police officer shot and killed early Sunday appears to have been struck by friendly fire, Mayor Danny Jones said. Patrolman Jerry Jones, 27, died shortly after 1 a.m. after a chase involving several police officers that ended on a gravel road near Quick, said Jones, who is not related to the fallen officer. The officers had been trying to catch a pickup truck that they suspected of involvement in a hit-and-run accident Saturday night, said Charleston Police Chief Brent Webster. The mayor said officers fired shots after the truck began ramming police cars. Jones was one of five officers on scene at the chase's end. The driver of the pickup, who also was fatally shot, was unarmed, the mayor announced during a late Sunday news conference. The suspect's name has not been released, pending notification of family. "There's every reason to believe" Jones was struck by a bullet fired from another officer's gun, the mayor said. He was wearing a bulletproof vest, but the mayor said the bullet struck him just above the vest... (This report is over two weeks old but seemed worth sharing. Rule Four: Always be sure of your target and what's beyond it. Bullets don't do much to automobiles - your own vehicle is likely to be the better weapon under those circumstances so long as you don't damage it in the process. The key points are to impact approximately two mph faster than the speed of the other vehicle and to aim for the other vehicle's tires.) http://www.herald-dispatch.com/news/briefs/x912513276/Charleston-mayor-Police-officer-likely-killed-by-friendly-fire --- Michigan State to Open Shooting Facility: Target shooters and archers have a new location to learn, hone their skills and brush up on hunting safety, with the opening of Michigan State University's John and Marnie Demmer Shooting Sports Education and Training Center. A public open house will be held 3-7 p.m. Oct. 2 at the Demmer Center, which officially opens Oct. 5. The $3.5 million, 24,000-square-foot facility will allow the public to learn shooting safety and improve shooting and archery skills, in addition to housing MSU club shooting sports - small bore, air rifle and archery. Other potential uses include academic programs in shooting sports, law enforcement and related curricula and NCAA competitive shooting events. The center will add capacity to university programs requiring firearm safety and education certifications, including ROTC training and recruitment, and the conservation officer specialization and environmental crime certificate programs offered through MSU. It also will accommodate Michigan Department of Natural Resources conservation officer and MSU Police officer certification training, as well as state programming and certification in firearm safety for all age groups... http://news.msu.edu/story/6889/ --- Flying with Firearms: Video of nearly 40 minutes provides advice on how to fly with firearms and how to secure them during transport. (The speaker has a potty mouth but appears to be very experienced and knowledgeable. Second link is his website.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGjddG5Owsc http://deviating.net/firearms/packing/ --- More on Kalashnikov Bankruptcy: Even in his old age, Mikhail Kalashnikov still worries about the invention that defined his life. At a conference on the 60th anniversary of the weapon that he invented in 1947 - the Avtomatni Kalashnikova (Automatic of Kalashnikov) or AK-47 - the elderly weapons designer, who is still chief designer for the state controlled company that makes the guns, lamented that, "there are counterfeits all around the world now which are plainly not of the same quality as the Russian example." ... And now it appears that the financial difficulties facing the weapons manufacturer have reached crisis point: its very existence is threatened. A businessman in Izhevsk has filed a motion to declare Izhmash Arms bankrupt because of outstanding debts of around 8 million rubles (around EUR180,000 or $265,000). The case has caused a sensation in Russia because for a long time the Russian armaments industry has been one of the only industries considered competitive on an international basis. And Izhmash, which was founded in 1807 by Russia's royals, is one of the largest firearms manufacturers in Russia... http://abcnews.go.com/Business/russian-rifle-manufacturer-faces-bancruptcy/story?id=8708780# --- From AzCDL: AzCDL's Fourth Annual Meeting of Members is only a few days away and we're expecting a sell-out crowd! If you are attending our annual meeting there is NO need to get there before we start seating at Noon. We have enough space to accommodate everyone and will seat you as quickly as possible, but not before Noon, after we have finished setting things up. Volunteers needed! We need help setting up the meeting space on Friday, October 2, 2009. If you would like to burn some calories in anticipation of a great barbeque and have an hour or so to spare, we could use your help! Ten volunteers would make this go very fast. If you would like to help, please call Duke Schechter, AzCDL's Membership Director, and chief table and chair wrangler, at (917) 881-8004. We'll also need help breaking everything down after the meeting. The more the merrier and the quicker it goes. If you are able to help, please stick around after the meeting. See you Saturday! These alerts are a project of the Arizona Citizens Defense League (AzCDL), an all volunteer, non-profit, non-partisan grassroots organization. Renew today! http://www.azcdl.org/html/join_us_.html AzCDL - Protecting Your Freedom http://www.azcdl.org/html/accomplishments.html Copyright © 2009 Arizona Citizens Defense League, Inc., all rights reserved. -- Stephen P. Wenger, KE7QBY Firearm safety - It's a matter for education, not legislation. http://www.spw-duf.info .