Have you ever seen somebody in the news arrested for something...

And your first thought is "where can I get one!?!"

Enter one Mr Jeremy Bell, of Toronto Canada.

Seems Mr. Bell purchased a very realistic looking lego gun. It further seems that some pervert who can't mind his own business and whose apartment overlooks Bell's office spotted the pistol. Said neighbor called Toronto's Emergency Task Force, who promptly responded. Mr. Bell was released without charges, and laughs were had by all. Okay, maybe only me.


I am hotlinking images, I know. I'll make it up to the company by having everybody I know buy me a lego gun.
This is the gun.


I want this one.



They even sell ammunition.


Update: they have just become backordered 4-6 weeks. Totally awesome.

What an interesting event it would have been...

I am home on two weeks R&R leave from Iraq, and have been flying all over the country. During my recent layover at the Phoenix airport, I struck up a conversation with an elderly gentleman and his son. They are headed out to meet a Linda, who lives near Chicago. I know a Linda who lives near Chicago! I mentioned Linda's site, but they were unfamiliar with it. The two gentleman and I had a wonderful discussion, from scripture to great grandchildren to chess. They boarded their plane and went on their way. What a wonderful coincidence if I had met the family of my internet friend. As it turns out, I had not.

Chicago gun case

The D.C. gun case I reported on a while back has returned, although in a slightly different form.

Legal experts and nitpickers, please be advised: I write this for people who have little to no interaction with the law.

That said, I will fix blatant errors if they are pointed out to me. I am not a lawyer and operate with a limited understanding of the law. I really don't have a good grasp on the difference between Privilege and Immunities and Due process.

A quick summary of Heller v. D.C.
D.C. said that nobody can legally own a handgun without licensing and registration. D.C. then refused to license or register any handguns. This effectively banned private handgun ownership in D.C. with very few exceptions. A security Guard (Dick Heller) and his lawyer (Alan Gura) thought that it was B.S. because Heller wanted a gun to protect himself at home. After several twists and turns, the Supreme Court said that D.C. MUST allow Heller to register his gun for defense in the home, assuming he didn't become disqualified during the preceding years of the court case. In this sense, disqualified means becoming a felon and thus unable to legally own a firearm.

Because of the way that U.S. law works, that decision only applies to the Federal Government. A very similar law is in place in Chicago, Illinois. The Lawyer, Alan Gura, flew over to Chicago and sued them on behalf of 4 people including Otis McDonald. Now this case is headed to the Supreme Court. Everybody watching this case expects (on the pro gun side) and seems resigned (on the anti gun side) for the Supreme Court to tell Chicago to shut up and sit down, and to let people who aren't felons get a gun for home defense.

There is a bit of discussion about how to incorporate(1) the case as well. The case might be incorporated through the Privileges and Immunities Clause (2), or the Due Process Clause (3).

If the Amendment is incorporated through the Due Process clause, it basically means that the Supreme Court is saying that the Second Amendment is part of the fundamental fairness and traditions of of our land and each US Citizen has the specific right.
If it is incorporated through the Privileges and immunities clause, it means the Supreme Court thinks that the Second Amendment applies to all Citizens, and is one of the special rights the Citizen has against the State and Feds.

For this case, and this case only, the result will be exactly the same regardless of the incorporation method used. If the Second Amendment is incorporated through the Due Process clause, it will follow the general tradition that has incorporated the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights. If it is incorporated through the Privileges and immunities clause, it opens up a whole potential of new protections to our liberties.



---

A long, long time ago, and sometimes a bit more recent, some States made rules that said black people can't do certain things like vote, be on jury duty, testify in court, or own guns. The U.S. Congress said no, that is B.S, and made up the 14th amendment. That means that the States can't make up a law against someone just because they look different or come from somewhere weird like Idaho. There are a bunch of parts to the 14th amendment.
---


(1)Incorporate: Illinois and the other States will have to play by the same rules as D.C. Without this, Illinois (or it's cities) can make up it's own dumb laws that would, if written by the Federal Government, violate the Bill of Rights.

(2) Privileges and Immunities: This means that as an American, you have special rights. You have the right to drive to any State you want and become a citizen. After you do that, the State is not allowed to say "You were not born here, so we are going to treat real residents better than you. You can't go to school here and have to pay extra tax on your cars."

Well, some Cities and States decided to say "well, we can't just stop black people from owning guns, so we will stop everybody."

The legal argument here is that all citizens of the United States have the right to own a gun, and local laws cannot infringe on one's privileges or fundamental rights as an American just because he in unfortunate enough to be a resident of or travel through Chicago. We are now waiting to see if this is what the Supreme Court says.

(3) Due Process clause: This is another part of the 14th Amendment. It says that "Due Process is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law. Due process holds the government subservient to the law of the land, protecting individual persons from the state."
This means that Due Process is intended to ensure a fair and equitable legal process. At a basic level, procedural due process is essentially based on the concept of "fundamental fairness." For example, in 1934, the United States Supreme Court held that due process is violated "if a practice or rule offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental".

Since it can be argued that firearms ownership can be viewed as fundamental, going back to the founding of our nation and even before then, a law against owning firearms violates the fundamental fairness of our nation.
Most of the other rights listed in the Constitution are incorporated by Due Process.




Further Reading
Main website of the Chicago gun case

Some information from a real lawyer at Arms and the Law

A short post over at Sebastian's place (Snowflakes in Hell)

And finally, over at Volokh... ome of ,any posts on the topic.

And, finally, the NRA brief in the case.


I'll post the briefs for the other side when they become available.

I am still alive

I've not been able to post due to a deployment to Iraq. I have been here since July-August. Now that I am situated, I'll start posting some opinions again.

-Jdude

One art, please

I have a challenge for you.
Paint something in a yard, then paint an animal.

This is what I would like my yard to look like.



This is my cat, bitey.

Share your paintings in the comments.

The best one wins a picture of bacon.

Pipe bombs and the second amendment

This topic has come up because the 11th circuit has said no, they are not. The good professor Volokh's opinion.

I am going to use this post to try and set a defining line where I believe the court is going to split what weapons are protected and are not. This is not my viewpoint, this is how I think the courts are going to define the line.
---
The first class is weapons commonly held for lawful purposes by American people, that also have a militia purpose. (Heller+Miller)

The second category is weapons not commonly owned by Americans, yet when they are it is usually for lawful purposes.

The third category is the weapons of mass destruction category.

The final category is subclasses of normal weaponry that can be banned. This category includes things that are dangerous to manufacture when compared to other manufacturing processes. This also includes weapons that are unsafe for the user to operate. This category also includes traps, items disguised to not appear as weapons, and other wildly indiscriminate items.
---

Category 1:

This group is commonly held for lawful purposes by American people, that also have a militia purpose.

This category includes rifles, pistols, shotguns, knives, swords, and all other commonly owned weapons. I believe the Nunchaku case in New York, headed for the supreme court, will get decided with this in mind. I believe that the background check system will eventually fall to this as well. I do not think that violent felons or those convicted of the misdemeanor crime of domestic violence will get this right back.


Category 2: This category is weaponry that is particularly useful for "suppressing Insurrections and repelling Invasions", two of the duties of the militia when called up as defined by the Constitution. This category can be generally defined by what arms the local police or national guard have on hand. This includes cannon, tanks, machine guns, flash bangs, grenades, rpgs (American equivalent: the light antitank weapon "LAW"), artillery and mortars. I believe the restrictions will fall under time/manner/place restrictions. Ownership here would not be disallowed, but laws against driving your tank on a road, firing your mortar in a city or hunting with your mountain howitzer would most likely stand. NFA style difficulties to this class of arm will probably stand (which I disagree with).


Category 3: Weapons of mass destruction:

This is weaponry that has no lawful nonmilitary purpose, AND has no militia purpose, or is wildly indiscriminate in its normal use.

Nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons fail all three tests.

Absolutely nothing in this category would be protected by the Second Amendment.

This category, however, cannot also include arms banned by treaty. If it did, plenary power to disarm the militia could be granted by international treaty.

An example is hollow point ammunition, banned by international treaty for use in war but commonly used in the US by police, hunters and average people for self defense purposes. Otherwise a treaty could be written to ban all non NATO calibers, decimating the militia but leaving the US military unaffected.

Category 4:
The final category is subclasses of normal weaponry that can be banned. This category includes things that are dangerous to manufacture when compared to other manufacturing processes. This also includes weapons that are unsafe for the user to operate under normal operating guidelines.

To make a bad example, if 1 out of 3 people who make pizza get seriously injured due to the accepted process for making a pizza, manufacturing pizza can be banned. The same can be said for pipe bombs. If a larger number than average people are harmed while making pipe bombs (as compared to making gunpowder or reloading ammunition or something else comparable) then the manufacture of pipe bombs can be banned.

A rifle barrel made out of crispy bacon and twine is clearly unsafe to shoot with, and can thus be banned. Firearms made out of pot metal are not this extreme, but remain unsafe for the user. Firearms made of garbage metal therefore can be banned.

Traps such as a shotgun tied to a doorknob, can also be banned. Note that a shotgun itself cannot be banned. The manner of setting a trap with it can. The reason behind this is that a burglar may set it off, killing himself as designed, but so can a firefighter reacting to his lawful duty. There is no discretion behind the device.

Weapons disguised as other items falls under the subcategory of traps. Thus car bombs, mail bombs, briefcase guns and cigar guns can be banned.

---

The dividing line leaves us with two questions to ask.

Are they commonly owned and used for lawful non militia purposes?

If the answer is yes, it cannot be banned. If the answer is no, then the second question is asked:

Do they have a militia purpose, and can they be safely manufactured and operated? Is the item a trap?

If the answer to the second question contains a no, then the device can be banned.


Now we get to the title of this topic, pipe bombs. Where do pipe bombs, car bombs, Molotov cocktails, and other improvised weaponry fit? If pipe bombs were to become legal, are there any lawful uses of a pipe bomb? A pipe bomb can be used to destroy a beaver dam or remove tree stumps. A pipe bomb is essentially a cheaply made grenade, so it should fall into category 2 non common militia items and thus not banned. However, if pipe bombs are shown to disproportionately prematurely detonate during manufacturing, then they are weapons that can be banned.

What about car bombs? Let's define car bombs as a weapon explicitely designed to be mobile, discreet and disguised, used against an unsuspecting target. We will exclude vehicles that are transporting explosives, fuel, or other dangerous items in a lawful manner. Car bombs are explicitly weapons under common definition. They have no lawful purpose whatsoever.

Using the second test, "generally defined by what arms the local police or national guard have on hand", and the 4th test's "wildly indiscriminate" and "disguised as other items" clauses, car bombs can be banned.

Molotov cocktails: Molotov cocktails (gasoline in a jar) are currently illegal. If they were legal, would there be a lawful use for them? Quickly starting a fire in a field that one intends to lawfully burn is a good use. Flamethrowers currently fill this role, of which the use is completely unregulated in the United States. So under the above guideline, Molotov cocktails could not be banned but their use can be severely limited under time/place/manner restrictions.


I estimate this is the general guideline that the courts will take when deciding what weaponry is and is not protected by the Second Amendment.

With this in mind, I do not think pipe bombs will be protected by the Second amendment as they are much more dangerous to manufacture than other items. I do think that grenades and flash bangs, a functional equivalent, are protected under the guidelines I have written.


---
This is my non lawer opinion on how the court will further define the right.
-Jdude

Into the sunset...

I went to the sportsmans warehouse to go see if there were any firearms in need of adoption. I did not find anything that urgently needed to go home with me, so I headed to the exit.

At the checkout stand, which one must pass to leave the store, is an impulse buyer's trap: the candy spot.

I selected two sugary snacks and moved to the checkout stand.

The cashier, a young woman of around 22, asked a question of me: "Have you ever felt the need to do something to make you happy, but did not have the desire to do anything at all?"

Quite the contraction in desires, I thought. Having no answers, I suggested "Perhaps you should dance? Dancing often makes people happy."

She responded "my hands are too cold to dance... oh but I can do this!" She pulls her index finger all the way to the back of her wrist.

"Interesting", I say. I give her the vulcan salute.

Her hands form the American sign language symbol for "W". She smiles. I note that her fingers are slightly angled in a clear sign of early arthritis.

Being my turn again, I place my hands on the table and move my arms forward. (my wrists bend backwards a bit more than average). I simultaneously place cash on the counter to pay for my sugary snacks.

She completes the transaction, hands me my change, and attempts to twist her thumb back. She hurts herself. A grimace, then a larger smile.

I do the same, yet I avoid hurting myself. My smile looks like a gorilla preparing to bite someone (all teeth, no style). I don't get put in the local newspaper often.

I ask her if I helped to make her feel happier. She says "Yes". A I turn to walk away, she says "I don't even know you and I am in love with you."

I glance over my shoulder to discretely read her name tag, make eye contact and reply: "I love you too, Chelsea."



I mount my steed and gallop through the doors and out of her life, forever.





I galloped away quickly just in case she was a psychopath.