The Supreme Court has refused [pdf] to hear United States v. Masciandaro. That leaves Woollard v. Sheridan, which still has decent odds of making it to the calendar.

There's been some scuttlebutt that the Court would rather hear a "pure" case in which the petitioner isn't someone appealing a criminal conviction. Both the Heller and McDonald cases fit this bill, as they were brought by law-abiding citizens appealing unjust laws. In such cases, the Court can address a constitutional issue directly, without having other …

You too can be Irony King (or other monarch) of the week by going here and giving your address.  They send you one of these bumper stickers free.  The site says it'll take 4-6 weeks to ship, but that's still plenty of time before the primaries.

In other news, there's a promising verdict from the North Carolina Superior Court (opinion linked at Volokh) upholding a felon's right to keep and bear arms.

Before you flinch at that, bear in mind that one can be punished as a felon for crimes that do little or no real harm to anyone.  Rehabilitation or decades of clean living don't matter:  a felony conviction of any sort is a lifetime ban from owning firearms.  However, if the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental liberty (as the Supreme Court ruled in McDonald), can felons be denied its exercise forever?  After all, they still have rights to freedom of speech and legal counsel, right?

H.R. 822 now has 245 cosponsors.  I have my reasons for thinking it's the wrong approach, and even if it does get through the Senate, it won't be signed.  That's alright.  I like this one for one very salient reason: it's got folks in certain corners going all kinds of asplodey.

Today's exhibit is from the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV).  They were originally formed in 1975 as the National Coalition to Ban Handguns.  One of the founders was Edward Welles, who also started the Violence Policy Center.  At some point, they decided …

Things might not be what they seem. I have very little to substantiate this at the moment, but some folks with their ears closer to the ground than mine are wondering what Governor Brown might be playing at with the gun-control bills he signed into law this week.

We've got an interesting snippet from a statement he made today:

The governor tried to explain to an audience in Belmont why a bill that bans the open carrying of unloaded handguns and another that makes it easier to carry a concealed weapon were both signed.

“There is a phrase called the coincidence of opposites. I can even say it in Latin—coincidentia oppositorum. It means that apparently antagonistic measures can be melded together in a higher unity.”

This got me thinking.

Today, California Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 144 into law, making open carry of any sort a misdemeanor.

Since 1967, there's been a loophole in § 12031 that allows an unlicensed citizen to carry a handgun, as long as it's visible and unloaded. It's a questionable mode of carry, but at least it's an option when others are not available. Now, Californians don't even have that. Who's to blame? Portantino? Brown? Nope. We are.

For over 40 years, the whole technicality was something of an open secret, but it was never front-page news. That is, until a bunch of pro-gun …

The ATF recently distributed a letter to firearms dealers to remind them that they cannot sell guns to users of marijuana. People are suddenly up in arms about the situation, which I find odd, since this isn't anything new.

Good old Kentucky Blue has been Schedule I since 1970, and the accompanying prohibitions date back to 1968. Having or consuming the stuff is illegal, and those who do so are prohibited under U.S.C. § 922(g) from receiving or possessing a firearm. Thanks to an unpleasant trend in jurisprudence, federal law overrides any state laws …

The Supreme Court has chosen not to hear Williams v. Maryland this term.  Are we screwed, then?

The implications aren't encouraging. The first is that we couldn't get four Justices to take an interest.  The second is that there might have been four, but they didn't think they could convince a fifth to their side.  A loss at the Supreme Court level would essentially end the reach of the 2nd Amendment at the doorstep of one's home.

While Williams was our best overall case, we've still got Masciandaro and Woollard awaiting review.  However, their chances aren't looking too bright …

We know now that the ATF sat by and let straw purchases of weapons happen in Phoenix.  We know they reassured dealers that the weapons would be tracked.  We know that didn't happen, and that those weapons have been used in dozens of homicides.

As of today, we also know that the ATF themselves purchased weapons and sold them to criminals.  Apparently, John Dodson was given authorization and ordered by Supervisor Voth to pick up a few Draco pistols and deliver them to suspects.

I'm not sure why Dodson didn't bring this up during his testimony to Congress back …

John Crewdson has an article on Bloomberg in which he laments the progress of H.R. 822.  One implication of the bill is that a New York resident could bypass his own state's requirements by simply getting a non-resident concealed weapon license from Florida, which New York would have to honor.

Apparently, this represents such an existential crisis for Mr. Crewdson that he applied for a Florida license. He details the process in the article, along with the fact that he lied on the application:

I’ve never touched a handgun and I haven’t been to Florida in decades, yet

…

In the Heller and McDonald cases, the Supreme Court found that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms, but under current jurisprudence, that right ends at the front door of the home. Though both decisions contain dicta implying that the right to carry arms outside the home is protected, the lower courts disagree, citing a lack of specific direction from the Big Nine.

There are several cases currently awaiting the Court's review on the matter.  Woollard v. Sheridan challenges the unrealistic and corrupt permitting system used by the state of Maryland to deny the right of self-protection to ordinary folks, even those who have proven that they are in imminent danger. The plaintiff in Williams v. Maryland never even tried to get a permit, knowing that denial was a foregone conclusion. He was convicted of illegally carrying, and his conviction was upheld in a very arrogant 4th Circuit ruling.

United States v. Masciandaro is a third case, this one brought by a man who was convicted for having a firearm in his vehicle on National Park land. Of the three, this might be the best one to bring before the Court.

I came home to two different emails tonight. The news is good, and unintentionally amusing. Both messages regard Monday's Department of Justice announcement that gun dealers in the southwest would be required to report multiple sales of rifles to the ATF. The first is from the NRA-ILA:

House Committee Passes Amendment to Defund Illegal Obama Firearm Sales Reporting Requirement

Today, during consideration of the FY 2012 Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill, pro-gun U.S. Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) offered an amendment to prohibit the use of funds for a new and unauthorized multiple sales reporting plan proposed by

…

Does the right to keep and bear arms include the right to fire them?  According to today's 7th Circuit opinion [pdf], it does.

In order to keep a functional firearm in the home, Chicago residents must acquire a permit.  Part of getting the permit involves proving proficiency through a live-fire course at a range.  However, the city has an ordinance that prohibits anyone from opening a range in which the average person can do so.  Read that again.  Yep.

The 2nd Amendment Foundation sought an injunction against enforcement of the ordinance last year, but Judge Kendall upheld its constitutionality in District Court.  The case moved to the 7th Circuit in April, and they were not pleased with the city.

Stung by the result of McDonald v. City of Chicago, the City quickly enacted an ordinance that was too clever by half. Recognizing that a complete gun ban would no longer survive Supreme Court review, the City required all gun owners to obtain training that included one hour of live‐range instruction, and then banned all live ranges within City limits. This was not so much a nod to the importance of live range training as it was a thumbing of the municipal nose at the Supreme Court. [Judge Rovner's concurrence, p. 51]

Nor did they appreciate Kendall's somewhat apathetic treatment of the constitutional issues.

To be fair, the standards for evaluating Second Amendment claims are just emerging, and this type of litigation is quite new. (…) [but] The harm to [plaintiffs'] Second Amendment rights cannot be remedied by damages, their challenge has a strong likelihood of success on the merits, and the City’s claimed harm to the public interest is based entirely on speculation. [p. 3]

Arguments were heard by Judges Rovner, Kanne, and Sykes.  You may recall that the latter judge was the author of the Skoien opinion, which figures strongly in this case. All three agreed that the Chicago ordinance fails to pass any sane standard of constitutional scrutiny.

At the end of the day, the issue of building shooting ranges is peripheral: the real question is whether infringements on the 2nd Amendment must pass the same level of scrutiny as infringements on other enumerated rights.