Joel Rosenberg's arrest is getting a bit of coverage around the blogosphere, and while folks like Scott Greenfield and Mike Cernovich are supportive, not all of the coverage is sympathetic. For example, Greg Laden at ScienceBlogs has a less-than flattering piece titled "Jew with a gun tries to make point, gets busted, is very creepy."

(I should inject here that Laden isn't making an anti-semitic remark. JewWithAGun.com is one of Joel's many web sites.)

Look, I know that Joel is a bit odd at times, but I don't get a creepy vibe from him at all. He's just eccentric. Now, I admit I've never met Joel, so I could be wrong, but neither has Greg Laden. In fact, Laden seems to creeped out by gun ownership in general, and it causes him to miss a few points.

For example, in an unsourced quote (apparently pulled from this WCCO news story), Laden chooses to emphasize one aspect in particular:

Palmer then disarmed Rosenberg, removed the loaded magazine from the gun and the live round that was in the chamber. Palmer then returned the unloaded weapon to Rosenberg and asked him to leave, police said.

[emphasis Laden's]

There's nothing wrong or unusual about carrying a semi-automatic pistol with a round in the chamber. It's called "condition one" readiness, and police departments all over the world train their officers to carry this way. All modern self-defense pistols are designed to be carried this way. They have a safety mechanism (or two) to prevent the gun from going off accidentally.

The point is to be able to draw and fire quickly, and with only one hand if necessary. If the chamber was unloaded, you'd have to take time and use both hands to ready the gun for firing by cycling the slide. In a self-defense situation, that could mean a dangerous delay, and it might not even be possible if an assailant grabbed your other hand.

In an open letter to the officer who disarmed him, Joel sarcastically presents him with a list of options for how he can handle Joel the next time they meet, including chilling out, arresting him, beating him, or killing him. I won't reproduce the whole thing, but Laden misinterprets this passage:

3. Arrest me at gunpoint. Draw your service weapon, point it at me, after announcing that you're going to arrest me. Call for backup to secure me. I won't resist -- you have my word, Bill -- them or you. Keep your finger off the fucking trigger. You don't want my blood on your hands, and I won't have yours on mine.

About which Laden comments:

The list is embedded within and includes lots of phrases that say things like "don't worry, I'll never hurt you" but also includes what I like to think of as a "rule trigger" that in this case literally involves a trigger ... in item number 3. Palmer is invited to arrest Rosenberg at gunpoint .... putting it another way, Rosenberg is giving Palmer permission to do his job ... but embeds in this permission a specific threat: If Palmer touches his own trigger finger, then ... then what? It's a little unclear, but it seems to involve some fantasy that Palmer has of grabbing a police officer's gun so that it goes off and shoots him (Rosenberg). Yeah, this threat of suicide by cop is probably enough to bring him in and have him committed.

Joel isn't threatening to do anything, and Joel isn't talking about Sgt. Palmer touching "his own trigger finger," he's talking about Palmer touching his finger to the trigger of his own service weapon--which is unsafe gun handling that could result in an accidental discharge. That's the spilled blood that Joel is referring to.

I'm not sure why Joel brings this up. I can't see whether Palmer has his finger on the trigger of Joel's gun when he takes it from Joel, but if you watch the first minute of the video, Sgt. Palmer does appear to sweep the barrel of Joel's gun across Joel and across the other two people in the room. It's not the worst gun handling mistake--I've had people sweep me on the gun range--but it is a mistake. Joel teaches firearms safety, so maybe he was chiding Palmer a bit.

Later, Laden has this to say:

If you look on the web for books, classes, and information about this, you will find web resources put together by various pro-gun organizations and individuals. Mr. Rosenberg is, it turns out, one of the main go-to guys if you want to pursue a carry permit in the Twin Cities. You can buy his book, too.

So I see this incident as proof positive that the line between gun advocates and gun safety related resources and teachers on one hand, and threatening and dangerous gun nuts on the other hand, to be either very thin or simply non existent. Assuming that Joel Rosenberg is a dangerous crazy gun nut. Which I tend to think he is.

There's not much evidence of that, especially if you understand what Joel was talking about. In fact, Joel goes out of his way to emphasize that he's not making any kind of threat, a fact which Laden acknowledged in the quote above. Besides, if Joel's so dangerous, how has he gone 56 years without ever doing anything antisocial enough to prevent the state of Minnesota from issuing him a permit to carry a concealed firearm?

Finally, this last bit has nothing to do with Laden, but one of his commenters with a handle of "Albatross" explains how dangerously crazy Joel is in a 500-word rant that also includes the tale of how he use used to like Joel's novels but threw them away after Joel insulted his wife, speculation about Joel's penis size, and this wonderful tale:

This was VERY amusing to me when I sat behind him for a play in one of the Rarig Center's theaters. I enjoyed the performance a lot more than I should have, imagining myself kicking him really hard in base of the skull, and then shouting "How's the chambered round in your goddamned handgun working for you now, asshole?!" at his twitching corpse. Likewise slitting his throat with my pocketknife.

Yeah, Joel's the crazy one alright.

As I write this, 25% of the Windypundit blogging team is in jail.

When I brought Joel Rosenberg in to Windypundit as a co-blogger, I wanted him to cover firearms issues, especially the right to keep and bear arms. And he did, rather rabidly, with some of the longest posts on the blog. Even though his last post was over a year ago, he's still on the masthead, so as far as I'm concerned, he's still on the team.

And now he's also in jail. The Minneapolis police arrested him for...go ahead see if you can guess...yeah, illegal possession of a gun. In a courthouse. Which is a felony punishable by up to five years in jail. (They also got him for contempt of court, but that's just a misdemeanor.)

It all stems from an incident a month ago in which Joel dropped by police headquarters to pick up some papers. As is his way, he was wearing his gun, for which he has a carry permit. One of the cops, Sergeant William Palmer, told him he wasn't allowed to have it in the building (apparently because it was also a courthouse) and took it away from him.

Joel filed a complaint against Palmer and then, being Joel, proceeded to post videos taunting the cops. Needless to say, when I got the news of his arrest, it wasn't a total surprise.

One of the more curious aspects of this whole mess is that, at the time of the alleged incident, the police didn't bother to arrest him, even though, if you believe the arrest warrant, they had just witnessed the commission of a felony. There could be an innocent explanation for that, but given that they only arrested him after he filed a complaint, and after he spoke to the press, it sounds a bit like retaliation.

Currently, Joel is being held on $100,000 bond, with arraignment scheduled for tomorrow afternoon. It will be interesting to see how this develops.

Following up on my earlier post about the Supreme Court ruling against Chicago's handgun ban in McDonald v. Chicago, the case has been sent back to the lower court to figure out the details, so it's not quite time to arm ourselves yet.

An attorney involved in the case advised against Chicagoans running out and purchasing handguns until a lower court rules on the matter later this summer.

"Obviously I'm elated by the court's decision, said attorney David Sigale. "(But) I think it would be prudent to wait."

Sigale said he expects the U.S. District Court to take up the case again in the coming weeks and issue the city directives on the handgun ban and a number of specific ordinances regarding re-registration and pre-registration.

Naturally, Mayor Daley is planning to fight this:

Daley has scheduled a news conference for 1 p.m. today to discuss the ruling.  The City Council could consider new gun control measures as soon as Wednesday, Daley said last week.

City Hall has been drawing up plans after the justices heard arguments in the case in early March and appeared to indicate they would rule against the city.

In an interview with the Tribune, the mayor said his primary goal would be to protect police officers, paramedics and emergency workers from being shot when responding to an incident at a home.

It's nonsense to think that the loss of Chicago's handgun is going to endanger cops or any other first responders. Illinois will almost certainly keep its background check requirement, which means that only people with no significant criminal record will be able to possess a handgun legally. The aren't likely to suddenly commence a life of crime.

Let me put it another way: Last weekend in Chicago, 54 people were wounded by gunfire, 10 of them fatally. Since ordinary Chicago residents can't own handguns legally, most of those shots must have been fired by people who had guns in violation of Chicago's tough handgun ban. It's hard to imagine that more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens would have made things any worse.

"If the ban is overturned, we will see a lot of common-sense approaches in the city aimed at protecting first responders," Daley said. "We have to have some type of registry. If a first responder goes to an apartment, they need to know if that individual has a gun."

It sounds like the usual obstructive behavior. If the mayor can't make it illegal to own guns, he'll figure out a way to harass people who own guns legally. There will probably be lots of paperwork. As Scott Greenfield points out, this could drag on for decades, because the Supreme Court's ruling was remarkably lazy:

McDonald did one thing only, holding that the right enunciated in Heller applies to the states.  As with the mystery paragraph of Heller, the Court reiterated that the decision doesn't preclude regulation and limitation.  This leaves open the next hundred years of piecemeal litigation over each and every inch of imaginative legislation to see where the line is drawn.  We're so far away right now that we can't even see the line, no less know what the line precludes.

Heck, as Eugene Volokh points out, the Court hasn't even cleared up whether the right is truly fundamental, and whether limitations are subject to strict or intermediate scrutiny.  While these legal issues aren't particularly interesting to non-lawyers, they play a huge role in framing laws to restrict the applicability of Heller and its progeny.  More decisions needed to flesh out the right mean more years before anybody really understands what can and can't be done.

...

And if anybody doubts that McDonald is merely another baby step in a very, very long journey, consider that it took 214 pages to conclude that the right is incorporated.  Just wait until the Supremes have to struggle with some of the tougher questions, like whether children under the age of 6 months living in a home for which an application to possess a firearm has been made will have to pass a physical examination to demonstrate competency in firearms handling.  Yes, the possibilities are endless.

Meanwhile, getting back to Mayor Daley's rantings, this sentence gives pause for thought:

He said he also wants to save taxpayers from the financial cost of lawsuits if police shoot someone in the house because the officer felt threatened.

This is absurd. The courts know how to handle lawsuits over police shootings, and police officers have always been allowed to shoot when they reasonably feel their life is in danger. If the handgun ban is struck down, threatening a police officer with a gun will still be a crime, even if the gun is legally owned, and the police rules for use of force won't change, just has they haven't changed anywhere else in the country where people can own handguns.

What Mayor Daley is really worried about is that the City of Chicago has been paying out millions of dollars in damages for the illegal or dangerous conduct of its police officers, and Mayor Daley sees the impending fall of the handgun ban as an excuse to drum up some sort tort protection. It's incredibly cynical.

The Supreme Court has spoken:

Court rules for gun rights, strikes Chicago handgun ban.

In another dramatic victory for firearm owners, the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional Chicago, Illinois' 28-year-old strict ban on handgun ownership, a potentially far-reaching case over the ability of state and local governments to enforce limits on weapons.

So, anyone know how soon I'll be able to buy that pair of Desert Eagle 50s I've been wanting? They're so pretty.

... and a look back at how to solve the problem of the armed village idiot...

There's folks who say (I'm one of them) that the MCPPA is one of the best carry permit laws in the country.  They -- we -- have a point. 

Quick digression:  I'm occasionally praised for being one of the folks who helped write the law.  That's flattering, but it's not true; I've learned a fair amount about how to draft legislation since, and do have some future plans to help write some in the future, but, just to keep the record straight:  I had no hand at all in authoring the bill.

(In fact, because I was involved in writing the book at the time that the law was being negotiated and drafted, Joe Olson and I made the decision that, for ethical reasons, I was to be kept out of the loop on the discussions, so as not to unfairly disadvantage a -- hypothetical and nonexistent, as it turned out -- competitor.  In retrospect, I think we bent over too far backwards, but . . .)

While the main author of the bill was Lynda Boudreau, then a member of the MN House, most of the language was drafted by Joseph Olson and David Gross.  It's hard to overstate the importance of Joe in the modern Second Amendment movement, so rather than get into it, just take my word for it:  he's one of the giants.  It's easy to understate the importance of David's contributions; David does it all the time.  While Joe had a lot of trial experience in his younger days, he's mainly been an academic for some decades, now; David's experience in the trenches -- and the lessons learned from that experience -- was critical.

One of the problems facing anybody crafting a carry law is this:  who should and shouldn't get a permit?  One view -- and it's mine -- is that the Second Amendment simply recognizes a right, and that there should be no need for permits at all; we don't, after all, have to get a religion permit in order to be able to fast on Yom Kipper, attend High Mass, or head over to D'Amico to worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster by consuming the traditional zuppa de clams, after all.

But, as a practical matter, that wasn't what was going to happen in Minnesota in 2003 -- or probably ever.

Another view -- which I reject -- is that carrying a handgun for personal protection is a great privilege, which only the most special people should be allowed to have.

The MCPPA strikes a balance.  As a matter of presumption, just about anybody who is legally entitled to possess a firearm at all, and who has gotten what can be comically minimal training in the safe use of a pistol --

Training may be demonstrated by ... completion of a firearms safety or training course providing basic training in the safe use of a pistol...  

(b) Basic training must include:

(1) instruction in the fundamentals of pistol use;

(2) successful completion of an actual shooting qualification exercise; and

(3) instruction in the fundamental legal aspects of pistol possession, carry, and use, including self-defense and the restrictions on the use of deadly force.

-- gets a permit within thirty days of applying. 

But, you might say, what do you do about the borderline cases?  Let's say you have some raving nutcase who is able to get through a minimal carry class, and who hasn't gotten in such serious legal trouble that he's forbidden from so much as possessing a firearm, even under supervision -- are you saying that he gets to wander around with a loaded handgun, until he commits a felony?   

Good question; I'm glad I asked it.   

One simple solution would be to give some governmental authority -- the local sheriff, say -- the right to decide that some applicant was just too dangerous and nutty to be wandering around in public with a loaded gun.  And that would have some benefit to it, sure.  But it would also have some risks:  what do you do about a sheriff who goes beyond that?  Historically, in Minnesota and everywhere else, anytime you give some politician or government official any power at all, some are going to abuse it.

And there was a real history of permit denial abuse in Minnesota.  The Richfield police chief famously said that, as far as he was concerned, if you're running down the street being chased by an axe murderer, you shouldn't be able to have a gun to defend yourself.  (No, I'm not making that up.)

Which is why the MCPPA provides both authority to the sheriff, and a check on it.

(a) The sheriff must, within 30 days after the date of receipt of the application packet described in subdivision 3:... (1) issue the permit to carry [or] ... (3) deny the application on the grounds that there exists a substantial likelihood that the applicant is a danger to self or the public if authorized to carry a pistol under a permit.

Hmmm... so the sheriff can deny a permit to a known knutcase, even if he isn't legally barred from handgun possession. But what, you ask, is to stop the sheriff from just denying it to, well, everybody?  Yeah, sure, somebody can take him to court, but that gets expensive.

And here's where Joe and David were stone fucking brilliant; I'm going to quote the whole subdivision, adding some emphasis:

Subd. 12.Hearing upon denial or revocation.

(a) Any person aggrieved by denial or revocation of a permit to carry may appeal by petition to the district court having jurisdiction over the county or municipality where the application was submitted. The petition must list the sheriff as the respondent. The district court must hold a hearing at the earliest practicable date and in any event no later than 60 days following the filing of the petition for review. The court may not grant or deny any relief before the completion of the hearing. The record of the hearing must be sealed. The matter must be heard de novo without a jury.

(b) The court must issue written findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the issues submitted by the parties. The court must issue its writ of mandamus directing that the permit be issued and order other appropriate relief unless the sheriff establishes by clear and convincing evidence:

(1) that the applicant is disqualified under the criteria described in subdivision 2, paragraph (b); or

(2) that there exists a substantial likelihood that the applicant is a danger to self or the public if authorized to carry a pistol under a permit. Incidents of alleged criminal misconduct that are not investigated and documented may not be considered.

(c) If an applicant is denied a permit on the grounds that the applicant is listed in the criminal gang investigative data system under section 299C.091, the person may challenge the denial, after disclosure under court supervision of the reason for that listing, based on grounds that the person:

(1) was erroneously identified as a person in the data system;

(2) was improperly included in the data system according to the criteria outlined in section 299C.091, subdivision 2, paragraph (b); or

(3) has demonstrably withdrawn from the activities and associations that led to inclusion in the data system.

(d) If the court grants a petition brought under paragraph (a), the court must award the applicant or permit holder reasonable costs and expenses including attorney fees.

That last paragraph isn't just unusual in carry laws; it's unique.  And it provides a good, albeit imperfect, check on bad judgment or bad faith by the sheriff:  while the denied applicant does have to come up with some money -- usually around $3000 -- for a lawyer, if he wins, the court must order the sheriff to pay him back.

Nobody's perfect, not even -- maybe particularly not -- guys with badges. And it works both ways to correct errors.

Let's take a perhaps not entirely hypothetical case.  Some guy with a history of relatively minor brushes with the law -- interfering with a 911 call, a couple of disorderly conducts and two DWIs, say, manages to get through some sort of carry class at local gun shop -- and applies for a permit.  Looking at the application and his criminal history, the deputy says something like, well, Josh hasn't been in trouble again for a few years; maybe he's gotten his act together -- let's just cut the guy a break, and issues the permit.

Well, maybe it was the right call at the time; maybe not.  But let's say that this perhaps hypothetical guy goes on to pick up another DWI, a third and then a fourth disorderly conduct conviction, and tops it off with a 5th degree assault when he peppersprays a customer at his security guard job, and spends thirty days in jail.  

Is the sheriff out of luck just because none of those are felonies?

Not at all.  Look at the law, again, specifically Subd. 4 (c):

The sheriff must conduct a background check by means of electronic data transfer on a permit holder through the Minnesota Crime Information System and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System at least yearly to ensure continuing eligibility. The sheriff may also conduct additional background checks by means of electronic data transfer on a permit holder at any time during the period that a permit is in effect.

Yup.  Every year, the sheriff has to redo the electronic background check at least once, and can do it at any time.  And if he finds that there is, as the law says, "a substantial likelihood that the applicant is a danger to self or the public"? 

See Subd 8:

The sheriff ... may file a petition with the district court therein, for an order revoking a permit to carry on the grounds set forth in subdivision 6, paragraph (a), clause (3).

Pretty neat, eh?  Which is among the many reasons why, in the greater scheme of things, the MCPPA is probably the model against which other modern, mainstream, commonsense "shall issue" carry permit laws will be measured.

Oh -- and as a minor thing: it's also why one village idiot (pictured at right) will likely be getting a knock on the door, sooner than later, and finding a deputy serving him with his copy of a revocation petition.

All's well that ends well.

[Update, 12/29/09: the village idiot himself weighs in; see the comments.]

Here we go again . . .

Near as I can figure out, Josh Hendrickson of Minnetonka MN, didn't have anything useful to do last Saturday, so he headed on down to the Obama Worship Seminar at the Target Center, where thousands and thousands of Minnesotans were assembling to hear Barack Obama explain that the folks who had done such a wonderful job with delivering our mail are now ready and eager to take over our health care, or something like that.  

I can actually understand why somebody who has a Minnesota carry permit (often mistakenly called a "conceal and carry permit") might reasonably choose to carry a handgun under his outer clothing when heading into downtown Minneapolis -- or, actually, anywhere else.  Bad stuff can happen anywhere, and the area outside the Target Center is not a mugger-free environment, nor is the walk from there to wherever one parks.  As Hendrickson later, in a moment of lucidness, said to a Star Tribune reporter, when he leaves his house, "I grab my wallet, my keys, and my gun."  Nothing wrong with that.   .

And I can certainly understand why somebody would want to be part of a counterprotest against Obamacare.  "We are Americans.  We have the right to disagree and debate with any administration," as Hillary Clinton said, back before she joined this administration.  She was right then; she's right now.

So far, so good.

And it was also, all in all, pretty good that somebody in the Secret Service and/or MPD apparently spotted a telltale bulge at Hendrickson's waist.  Concealment isn't difficult, mind you, but a lot of folks who have taken inadequate carry classes haven't been given good directions as to how to do that, and some who have taken good carry classes weren't paying attention.

So, it was perfectly reasonable that a couple of MPD cops came over and checked out his carry permit -- something they've every right to do, under the law -- and then a Secret Service agent stopped by for a quick, professional chat.  It's not like there was any chance that Hendrickson was going to get near the President, after all -- hell, he couldn't have gotten inside the building without going through a metal detector -- and while there's no reason at all to think he planned on shooting President Obama, it didn't hurt to check him out.

But then, his little incident having been concluded with no muss, no fuss, and no arrest, Hendrickson proceeded to chase down the nearest reporter, and make sure that he got the attention that he so desperately craved.  Apparently dressing so that the authorities would "accidentally" see the bulge in his clothing hadn't gotten him enough attention, the poor dear.

He did get his attention, and he isn't liking it. The idiot's been posting up a storm, ever since. 

As it turns out, Josh Hendrickson's is pretty lengthy, and pretty bad:

• CASE NO. 27-CR-08-57490 June 8th, 2009 Convicted-5th Deg. Assault-Intent to Cause Bodily Harm

• CASE NO. 02-CR-07-7671 Oct. 6 2008 Convicted Disorderly Conduct-Brawling or Fighting

• CASE NO. 10-VB-07-8199 Apr. 16, 2008 Convicted Disorderly Conduct

• CASE NO. 27-CR-06-084595 Feb 14, 2007 Convicted 3rd Deg. DWI

• CASE NO. 27-CR-04-014473 Sept 29, 2004 Convicted Disorderly Conduct

• CASE NO. 27-CR-03-025265 Apr 21, 2003 Convicted Interfere with Emergency Call

• CASE NO. 27-CR-99-011521 Feb. 18, 1999 Convicted Alcohol con. .10 or more

• CASE NO. 27-CR-98-086285 Sept. 14, 1998 Convicted Reckless Driving

• CASE NO. 27-CR-96-109111 Jan. 9, 1997 Convicted Disorderly Conduct

Yucko.  Four convictions for disorderly conduct?  How the hell does anybody manage that?  Discon is, often, one of those bogus charges that cops throw at somebody who they really don't have anything on, and which quickly gets dismissed as soon as a real lawyer enters the case.  Four of them?  Interfering with an emergency call?  Two DWIs?  And let's not get into the pepper-spraying incident that cost him his most recent conviction for 5th Degree Assault.

Why somebody with that kind of record would try to draw both police and public attention to himself is pretty easy to explain. 

See, there's apparently been an open position in Minnetonka for a village idiot, and, having gotten fired from his job as a security guard for pepper-spraying a customer, Hendrickson was just looking for work.

Earth to Josh Hendrickson:  the position of village idiot doesn't pay well, or at all. 

Sheesh.  I was going to be blogging about another idiot, but . . . some other time. 

Addendum:  a fair number of folks have asked why this nimrod had a carry permit in the first place.  It's a good question.  The Minnesota Citizens Personal Protection Act is, by design and intention, a liberal law -- the notion is that somebody should not have a fundamental right restricted, except under unusual circumstances.  Hendrickson would have lost his right to possess firearms -- and his carry permit -- if he'd been convicted of any felony, or a domestic violence misdemeanor.  Among his cornucopia of convictions -- including an amazing four disorderly conducts, a couple of DWIs, interfering with a 911 call (!), and his latest feat:  the assault where he spend thirty days in the more structured environment suitable for his special needs -- there aren't any of those.

But there is some hope, and it's in the law:

(c) The sheriff of the county where the application was submitted, or of the county of the permit holder's current residence, may file a petition with the district court therein, for an order revoking a permit to carry on the grounds set forth in subdivision 6, paragraph (a), clause (3). An order shall be issued only if the sheriff meets the burden of proof and criteria set forth in subdivision 12. If the court denies the petition, the court must award the permit holder reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney fees.

Yup.  Hendrickson's sheriff can, if he chooses, file a petition to have Hendrickson's permit yanked, on the grounds that "there exists a substantial likelihood that the applicant is a danger to self or the public if authorized to carry a pistol under a permit."  Hendrickson's due process rights would be intact -- and, if he managed to beat the petition, he'd be awarded his lawyer's fees.

I don't think that's likely, though.  Sounds like a slam dunk to me, and I wouldn't find it at all surprising if Hendrickson loses his permit, sooner than later. 

I guess we'll see. 

Let's start off by reviewing the key paragraph in our last episode:

On April 16 of 2008, Sheriff Bob Fletcher and Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner filed a hundred-page petition (here's Part 1; here's Part 2) with District Judge Joanne Smith, requesting that the judge revoke what they called Wilson's "conceal and carry permit", and documenting, in great detail, each and every one of the incidents above. In detail. The petition had been written and researched by David Rossman -- then a deputy assigned to Sheriff Fletcher's gun permit unit.

Which, combined with all the other strangenesses, was more than strange enough.

This morning it got stranger.  The following was posted in the comments -- go look for yourself.

I represent Ms. Wilson. You are wrong on many of your facts.

In addition, the incidents of 2004 and 2007, did not involve Michelle Rae Wilson. Those incidents involved another "Michelle Wilson". Ms. Wilson has no son named Terrance. She was not the perpetrator in those situations. I guess you should print at retraction.

All of this is wrong:

"In 2004, two neighbors accused Wilson and another son of pouring sugar in their car's gas tank; according to police records, one said that, "Michelle Wilson threatened to blow up her house and kill her. She taunted her to go outside." She owed Wilson $60, and couldn't pay. Vandalism is a crime; terroristic threats are a felony.

"But Wilson was never prosecuted -- SPPD Officer Kong just left a card at the house -- and it all went away.

"In 2007, Nakeshia Britton, a high school classmate of Wilson's son Terrence, got another restraining order, claiming that Wilson, her son and others had followed Britton's school bus home, after which Wilson and her son Terrence, "came up on the porch with broken beer bottles and a bat trying to hit me... and told Edna, my foster mom, to let me come out so they can kick my retarded ass." She said that they tried to force their way in."

Michelle has a clean record. Her friends and neighbors love her. You wrote a very unfair and factually false piece as it pertains to her.

Thanks,

Gary Wolf
Attorney for Michelle Rae Wilson

I'm always up for correcting any facts, of course, and I have no particular reason to doubt Mr. Wolf's claims of this morning that the 2004 and 2007 incidents were another Michelle Wilson.

In fact, I think he's right. Hence:

Addendum and digression:

Let me put that more strongly:  Oops.  I missed something.  After getting Mr. Wolf's email this morning, and reading his comment, as reprinted above, I went back and looked again at the voluminous documentation that Sheriff Fletcher filed with the court, and went over it with my friend, David Gross, who had reviewed both the piece and the revocation petition before.

While it's clear that the 1996 incident is Mr. Wolf's client, Michelle Rae Wilson, it's also clear, upon review, that the 2004 and 2007 incidents are, as he says, another Michelle Wilson, who lived at another address.  We missed that, when reviewing Sheriff Fletcher's petition.

End of Addendum.

But, let's be clear:  they're not my facts.  The source for the story wasn't my imagination -- I'm just a fiction writer, by trade, and I couldn't have made this stuff up; it's far too weird for fiction. 

The 1996 incidents, which Mr. Wolf doesn't dispute was his client (and, to be fair, he doesn't admit it, either) is from sections #6 and #7 in Sheriff Fletcher's and County Attorney Susan Gaertner's revocation petition, and their Exhibit K and and Exhibit L, both of which were submitted to the court in support of that petition.

Somebody accused of hounding an ex for four years (and that's what the accusation is in Exhibit K and L; I don't know if the accusers were lying) being issued a carry permit in Ramsey County?  Let's not be silly.  That wouldn't happen unless the applicant was connected -- say, by being the aunt of a Saint Paul cop.

But let's turn to the two incidents that Mr. Wolf does [addendum:  accurately] dispute. 

The 2004 incident, which Mr. Wolf does say was some other Michelle Wilson (and why would he lie?  I can't imagine a reason, and don't think he is) is also from Sheriff Fletcher's revocation petition, in which he claims that Respondent -- that's Mr. Wolf's client -- was named as a criminal suspect, and which Sheriff Fletcher supports with his Exhibit J.

The 2007 incident, which Mr. Wolf also says was some other Michele Wilson, is, yet again, from Sheriff Fletcher's revocation petition, in which Sheriff Fletcher claims that Respondent -- that's still Mr. Wolf's client -- was hit by a restraining order, and which he supports by his Exhibit I.

Let's assume -- he does seem credible to me; you decide for yourself -- that Mr. Wolf is right.  Why -- when trying to revoke a carry permit of a woman who was sitting in jail, accused of murder -- did Sheriff Fletcher throw accusations about another Michelle Wilson into the mix?

I wish I knew.  I think it's a fascinating question.

There are others.  Why wasn't the 1996 restraining order enough reason for Sheriff Fletcher to deny Michelle Rae Wilson's permit application in the first place?  He's certainly denied other applicants for less.  Why, when she was sitting in jail, did he apparently throw every accusation he could find up against the wall and see what would stick?  Wasn't the murder charge enough?  And why, after years in the Ramsey County Sheriffs Office gun unit, was David Rossman transferred to patrol after researching and writing that petition?

Apparently, one of the possibilities I raised in the last episode has not panned out:  it was apparently not a reward for the accuracy and thoroughness of the research he did in the revocation petition.  What did happen with the bumbling Deputy Rossman, and why?  Is it possible that, after deciding that Rossman is too incompetent to properly shuffle paper around, Fletcher put him in a squad car with a handgun and a shotgun to do things requiring far better and sharper judgment than he'd already demonstrated was lacking during his time in the gun permit unit?

I'd love to know the answers to all of these questions.

And there's more. Me, I think it would also have been news to many of us, back in 2008, after the murder, that the accused murderer was a Saint Paul PD dog cop's aunt, using supposedly, the gun that that same cop had given her.  Doesn't that sound like news to you?

Ah, if only there were some enterprise locally, that hired people to look into interesting questions about public figures and public officials, then reviewed and edited their reports, and printed them daily upon some inexpensive medium for public distribution.

Instead, what we've got is the Pioneer Press and the Star Tribune.

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." -- Winston Churchill

For those of you who didn't follow it, an amendment to a bill in the US Senate was defeated this week, on a 58-aye, 39 nay vote.  (Yeah, I know that sound strange; another time, okay?)  You'll find a remarkably typical MSM take on it here, and, honest, I'd love to discuss all the issues involved, but let's save that for another time; that's not this story. 

Part of the fight against passing this was the notoriously anti-gun advocacy group, the "Violence Policy Center," headed by Josh "Sugar Daddy" Sugarman*, and, as you'd expect, they were slaughtering trees, right and left, to turn out their agitprop, foremost among it, a "study" (actually, a collection of unreliable anecdotes, including at least one just plain lie) that purports to show that shouts that "Concealed Handgun Permit Holders Kill 7 Police, 44 Private Citizens Over Two-Year Period", which is, presumably, a bad thing and, putatively, some sort of reason that a law-abiding citizen who has been issued a carry permit in Minnesota can't be trusted to, say, carry a handgun in New York. 

(Pinky swear, since right about now I know that a bunch of you are reaching for your keyboards:  yes, there's a whole lot of other issues, around Federalism, states rights, carry permit laws, full faith and credit and all that stuff.  Not now, okay?)

Enter John Lott. Dr. Lott first came to public attention with the Lott/Mustard study that shows -- pretty clearly, I think; others disagree -- that among the effects of modern, mainstream, "shall issue" permit laws are to drive violent crime down slightly (when controlling for other factors), drive property crime up, also slightly.  By profession an economist, he's kind of been dragged, kicking and screaming only a little, into the national gun debate, and like anybody else who has been around for awhile, noticed that the antigun folks need to spend a whole lot of money on Nomex undies, what with their pants bursting into flame from lying a lot.

He noticed an unlikely anecdote on page 17:

Minnesota
# Concealed Handgun Permit Holder: Michael C. Iheme
Date: July 24, 2008
People Killed: 1
Circumstances: On July 24, 2008, Michael C. Iheme shot and killed his wife after she left
her job at an assisted living center. Court records show that she had an active harassment
restraining order against him and suggest a history of domestic abuse, including threats to kill her. After the shooting, Iheme called 911 and said, "I have killed the woman that mess my life up...." Iheme, who had a concealed handgun permit, was found guilty of second degree murder.

Source: "911 call: 'I have killed the woman that mess my life up," Minneapolis Star-Tribune, July 26, 2008;
"Man found guilty of killing estranged wife in St. Louis Park," Minneapolis Star-Tribune, February 6, 2009.

Yeah.  That does look strange, and unlikely, if you know anything about the subject.  The subject of a domestic OFP having a carry permit?  Unlikely.  Somebody with a history of domestic abuse being issued one?  It's not impossible, but it's not the way to bet.  Know a bit more, and it gets more unlikely -- Sheriff Stanek's office screwing up by issuing a permit to a domestic abuser with an OFP out on him?  Nah. 

But "nah" isn't a debunking.

Lott dropped an email to Andrew Rothman, a local Minnesota activist -- he's a friend of mine, and also the Executive Director of MADFI -- asking him to check it out, and Andrew got busy, sending one flunky off to see if there was some wisdom on the subject (check, but the flunky knew that) and interest in helping out on the part of David Gross (one of the few essential people in Minnesota Second Amendment activism, David's also an attorney, who knows the laws around this stuff backwards and forwards, having been involved in the writing of some and the practice of a lot of them for decades), and dispatching another -- John Pierce, second year law student at Hamline -- to the courthouse to look for the documentation that would have existed if Iheme had been a carry permit holder arrested on suspicion of murder.

Gross struck paydirt -- Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek, who would have been the issuing sheriff, took a quick look at both the relevant laws, regulations, and facts, and went on the record that Iheme not only had not had a carry permit, but had never even applied for one.

Yup. Stanek didn't say it -- I am -- but the VPC was lying.  What they said just ain't so.

And Pierce, looking for the nonexistent orders around the carry permit, stumbled across the smoking gun:  the police report that showed that what had been seized was Iheme's purchase permit.  Iheme had a permit to purchase a firearm, not one to carry.  But that fact had been carefully left out of the Star Tribune's reporting with the Strib's reckless disregard for the truth, and picked up and repeated by the folks at the VPC, who -- having endlessly picked at all of the states' carry laws -- had every reason to believe that the Strib had gotten it wrong, but just passed off the lie to their easily-gulled audience.

How easy?  Well, the next morning, on the Senate floor, Robert Menendez of New Jersey quoted the VPC "study", as though it proved something -- only to be shot down (metaphorically, honest) by the sponsor of the amendment, John Thune, who had been informed that there were provable lies in it, this among them.

What can we learn from this?

Well, we can't learn, alas, that 58 yes votes is enough to get something through the Senate; it wasn't, the other day.  We can't learn that the Star Tribune, in knowing and reckless disregard for the truth, will carefully leave out the word "purchase", when talking about a "gun purchase permit" held by a murderer -- we already knew that.  That's just how they roll.

We can't learn that the anti-gun folks like the VPC simply don't care about truth -- we already knew that, too.

We can learn, though, that networked grassroots activism can do things that the highly-paid lobbyists -- from the VPC or anywhere else -- just plain can't do.

That's worth learning, again.

____
* Okay, okay:  I don't have the slightest idea if Josh Sugarman has a nickname, and, if so, what it is. 

Hi there. My name's Joel, and I'll be your occasional Second Amendment issues blogger here. This particular essay is posted both at True North and at Windypundit, the latter of which is set up to handle comments.

Why a Minnesota radical moderate is posting a blog entry about conservatives and liberals on a Chicago area blog is one of those little mysteries of life, kinda like why flammable and inflammable mean the same thing.

But I digress.

I'm always a bit cautious about mentioning who has taken their carry class with me.  It's not a legal thing -- actual permit data is protected by the Data Practices Act, and isn't for public consumption, anymore than your 1040 is, but that's a different matter -- but more of a propriety thing:  getting a carry permit is a personal decision, and whether or not that's to be kept private is, well, not my call*.

I did a private class, not too long ago, for, well, somebody who has a: some statewide prominence in Minnesota, and b: a stalker.  He or she asked me not to mention his or her name publicly, so that made it easy.  (I think it was probably the right call in that case, but, heck, I'm utterly sure that it's not my call, so . . . )

So I've been thinking a bit about how to discuss this last weekend's class.  Which was, well, a blast. 

A bunch of the MOB folks asked if I was willing to put on a private class for them a while back, and we made it happen this last weekend, and it was even more fun than usual, for a lot of reasons. 

Over at Eckernet, Kevin, who sat in on the class -- and helped out; it was great to have him around -- had some comments on it.  Other than the nice things he said about me -- like I'm going to disagree? -- I think he had a good spin on one part of the class, but I was thinking about another matter.

Normally, when I do a carry class, I go to some trouble to try to keep my own politics out of it, most of the time.  Seems only fair; after all, people aren't signing up to spend a day being lectured to me on who they should vote for or what political positions to take. And, besides, politically speaking, I'm a radical moderate; nobody agrees with me.  

There's a couple things I feel very strongly about where I take off those restraints, though; I'm strongly of the opinion that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution recognizes a fundamental human right -- self-defense -- and that all rights come with responsibilities.

But this time, I took all of the self-restraints off.  It wasn't just that, by and large, I find myself agreeing with conservatives -- and, like most of the MOB crowd, these folks are definitely conservatives -- on many matters, but more it's that, by and large, conservatives tend to be more tolerant of differing opinions than liberals are.  (Yes, there are intolerant conservatives and tolerant liberals -- and I know some of both -- but I'm talking about definite trends.) 


And there have been some definite political implications around the gun stuff, of late.  Like, say, this award that I'm not entirely sure Obama is thrilled with having received.

All of which, by kind of a long road, leads me to a point I do keep making:  self-defense -- and that includes carry permits -- aren't a conservative issue, or a liberal issue, but a human rights issue. 

That doesn't mean that this stuff doesn't have political implications; it does. If you can persuade your liberal (and moderate) as well as your conservative friends to consider getting a carry permit and carrying a handgun as part of their personal safety strategy, you won't might be doing something with political implications.

Right now, we've got just over 60,000 Minnesotans with carry permits.  While the heavy lifting in getting the law passed that made that possible was done almost entirely by conservative Republicans, it would not passed without votes from a (small, granted) number of liberal DFLers. 

And it's not just conservatives who have gotten carry permits, either.  My admittedly liberal, tree-hugging wife was the first woman in line in Hennepin County to apply for her carry permit back in 2003, just to pick one example.

So, here's the pitch:  if you're a conservative, try to get your liberal friends -- and I don't know a conservative who doesn't have liberal friends -- to get their permits.  Sure, I'd love to have them in one of my classes, but that's not the point -- there's more than a hundred certified organizations, and hundreds upon hundreds of instructors, all across Minnesota, who can put them through a class.

How many people with carry permits do you know who would be real eager to vote for a politician who wants to take their rights away?

Yeah.  I didn't think so, either.

Yup.  From one perspective, a right-wing gun nut can be just a liberal who got a carry permit, just like a conservative is a liberal who got mugged, and a Sixth Amendment radical is just a conservative who got thumped by a cop.

But I digress.



__________________________________________

* Except, of course, for me.  Then again, ever since I testified in front of the MN House and Senate Committees, some years ago, on the necessity of reforming our (now-formerly) antiquated, bureaucrats-know-best carry laws, I've been more than a little out of the gun closet.

Last night, my wife told me that at her company party today they're going to be playing laser tag, and she's pretty sure that a lot of people are going to be gunning for her. I don't really know how the game works, and my knowledge of combat pistolcraft is more theoretical than practical, but I tried to come up with a few tips to help her out.

The key problem is that there's no time for practice. So advice like "don't pull the trigger, squeeze it" isn't much good because it takes time to learn the technique. It has to be something she has a chance of learning during the first few minutes of the game.

Here's what I came up with on short notice:

• Isosoles stance---Hold the gun with both hands, throw your arms forward and lock your elbows so the gun is straight out in front. Pivot from the hips to place the gunsight on the target. Pull the trigger until they light up.
• Keep the gun in shooting position all the time---Walk through the course with the gun pointed wherever you expect the threat, turning to face doorways or windows. Never lower it, never raise it. You'll look like a dork, but you'll get more kills than if you try to look cool.
• Take cover first---When someone shoots at you unexpectedly, get out of the kill zone to someplace they can't shoot you. Only then should you try to figure out how to pop out and shoot back.

I thought of one more piece of advice, but it was too late:

• Handle corners by moving sideways before advancing---rather than walk right up to a corner or a doorway, stand back a bit and move sideways to give you a better view around the edge. If there's a threat, it will be easier to duck back sideways than to back up suddenly.

So, was that good advice or bad advice? Anybody out there have better ideas?

Life does drift, and the discussion over at SJ that Mark links to led to a digression into tactical pens, tactical pants, tactical shirts, and tactical underwear.  (For those of you who have never tried to pronounce the phrase, "tactical pants," please do try it; it's almost impossible to say without giggling.)

Which reminds me of a story.

But I gotta back up for a moment.  Despite the impression that the opening of D'Shai has given some people, anybody who has met me will have quickly figured out that whatever I am, it's not a runner.

Being "vaguely pear-shaped" mixes poorly with marathons.

That said, during the summer, I do tend to spend a fair amount of time in a t-shirt and running shorts, just for the comfort.  Which does lead to a problem in how to carry the handgun.  Running shorts, after all, generally have an elastic waistband rather than loops for a good belt, and my usual pocket holster carry doesn't work well with those, even without worrying about the possibility of the shorts suddenly dropping to the ground with a loud thunk that might not go over real well.

Which is how I found myself at the party carrying in Thunderwear.  (I was also wearing conventional underwear, not wanting to give a whole new meaning to the term "going commando," honest.)  For those folks not willing to click on the link, please reconsider -- but the short form is that the gun is carried, remarkably discreetly, just in front of the, err, crotchal area...

There's lots of things that are useful about Thunderwear, honest, although it's not possible to holster the gun without doing violence to one of the basic safety rules:  never point the handgun at something that you're not willing to destroy.  (Short further digression:  Thunderwear is a great reminder that it's never, ever necessary to quickly holster the gun.) 

Well, it was all going very well until a woman friend of mine plunked down on my lap.  We're friendly sorts in my social circle.

Understandably, she gave me a look. 

"Well," I said, "I am happy to see you, but . . . "

"Yeah, I know:  you have a gun in your pocket."

She did have the courtesy to sound disappointed.

The White Knight got up this morning, and got ready to go out for the day.

He took some time threading his belt through the dual magazine carrier that he carries on his left hip -- never can have too much ammo, you know, and, besides, if you have to clear a stoppage with a semiauto, you probably will need to do a mag change -- and then through the CTAC holster that his Wilson Combat CQB Tactical LE rides in. A quick finger-check to make sure that a round was still chambered -- it was -- and he was, well, not ready yet. Still had to clip the Surefire KROMA flashlight to his belt. Great flashlight; $299, and worth every penny. If you're going to carry a gun, lots of the gunwriters say, you've got to carry pepper spray and a baton -- wouldn't want some prosecutor to argue that you didn't even have a lesser-force option available -- so he clipped the can of pepper foam behind the gun on his right side, and the ASP 16" baton to his belt on the left side. Oops. He had almost forgotten the knife -- the Masters of Defense Dieter CQD went into his right pocket. And, suitcoat concealing everything, he was ready to go to work. Hoped he didn't clank too much if he bumped into a doorframe at the office; wouldn't want to scare the other accountants.

That was him.  Me? 

I just opened the gun box, took out the snubby still in its pocket holster -- checked to make sure it was loaded; best to keep up the good habits -- closed and locked the gunbox, made sure that my pocket knife was, well, in my pocket, grabbed my car keys and headed for the door. 

Sarah Brady just sent me this.  Other than deleting the recipient's name -- I don't want to let out the pseudonym I give Sarah so she can dun me (unsuccessfully, I'll add) for contributions -- I haven't added or deleted anything, except a little bit of emphasis.  (Okay, okay; I also added the picture.) 

Let me give you a little bit of background, first.  Early in the month, the Department of Interior announced new rules around carrying of firearms in National Parks. 

Not a big deal, although poor Lloyd Garver got his LA knickers in a twist over at the HuffPo, almost as much as the time he visited Minnesota and didn't get shot.

Basically, the Interior Department aligned the rules for the national parks with those of the state in which they're located.  In Minnesota, for example, where I live, people with valid carry permits can carry their handguns in state parks; now, when they're up at Voyageuers National Park, the same rule will apply.  Similarly for Utah, Montana, both Dakotas -- and the vast majority of states; handgun carry permits are easily available in more than forty of the fifty states.

No effect, of course, in Wisconsin and Illinois -- the two states that, just like the District of Columbia, only allow cops and criminals to carry handguns -- and no practical effect in states like New York and New Jersey, not just because of the paucity of National Parks -- heck, the Statue of Liberty is run by the Park Service, and while Morristown is no Yellowstone, it's kinda cool -- but because, in states like that, carry permits are as rare as honest Chicago  politicians are in Chicago.

Now, over to Sarah; I'll be back in a bit.

MORE GUNS IN NATIONAL PARKS PUT VISITORS AT RISK 

Dear [Redacted],

The Bush Administration has given the gun lobby a special last-minute gift -- a very expensive one, ... one that puts public safety at risk.

The Brady Center is taking action to stop it.  We need your help.

The Brady Center has filed a suit asking a federal court to strike down the Administration's last-minute rule change to allow concealed, loaded guns in national parks and wildlife refuges. 

Please give a tax-deductible gift now to help us stop this unnecessary and dangerous ruling.  It will allow guns in rural and urban national park areas around the country ...

     ... from Wyoming's Yellowstone and California's Yosemite to Philadelphia's Independence National Historical Park, home of the Liberty Bell.

The Brady Center filed the suit on behalf of our Brady Campaign members, including school teachers in the New York  and Washington, D.C. areas who are canceling or curtailing school trips to Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty and the National Mall in Washington, D.C. now that the Bush Administration will allow guns in these national parks.

Click here to give today to support our efforts to keep our parks and wildlife refuges safe, to stop the gun lobby and the Bush Administration from enacting this last-minute ruling.

Sincerely,

Sarah Brady, Chair

Forward this email to everyone you know.

Yup.  Sarah's scaring teachers into avoiding the National Mall and the Statue of Liberty out of her panic that when some of us are visiting, say, Rushmore we might have lawfully-carried handgun on us, just like we'd have down the road at Custer State Park.

Sheesh, Sarah.  And I've been complaining about some folks on my side worrying about the sky falling.

These eight days ain't about candles performing beyond their published specs.

I don't make this stuff up, you know.  So, here we go again.

For those who came in late, let's go back to the Assault Weapons Ban.  Passed in 1994, the feature of it that drew most attention from people who don't own guns was the ban on the importation, and manufacture of some scary-looking (to some) kinda sorta military-looking rifles, like this one. 
Understandable, really, given all the mass killings by pretty Wiccan girl -- oh, nevermind.

Less remarked upon, outside the gun community, was the ban on the sale of new standard capacity magazines -- that's the black, boxlike thingee that the cartridges go into. The theory was that since nobody -- other than a cop -- needs a magazine with more than ten rounds, and since magazines with more than ten rounds are bad if you don't need them, much -- or, at least some -- goodness would ensue. Now, yeah, I know that's silly.  Granted few people can switch mags as fast as this guy, but realistically, it wasn't much of a muchness to most people.  A bad guy who wanted to murder a bunch of people with his Glock would, instead of carrying a couple of spare 15-round mags, would carry three ten-round mags. 

A good -- or, at least, okay -- guy, who thought that he might need more than ten rounds would just carry a spare mag, or buy one of the "pre-ban" mags which were still available, to those who had the cash.

But something did happen.  Since manufacturers could no long make guns for the noncop market that were designed around, say, fifteen-round magazines, they started designing more guns around ten-round or lower-capacity mags. 

The Assault Weapons Ban inspired a new class of smaller guns -- pocket pistols with ten rounds in fairly large calibers, like, say, these: (Two of the above are in 9mm; one's in .45.  Perfectly reasonable self-defense calibers.)

Which, naturally, made the folks in the anti-gun industry happy?  Nah.  They decided that the relatively new, smaller guns -- largely a response to their own sponsored legislation -- were evil:  "Pocket Rockets". 

Well, the Assault Weapons Ban has been dead for four years, and people can, if and when they want to, buy new, standard-capacity magazines, even if the mags happen to hold fifteen or sixteen rounds, but the "pocket rockets" remain.  (And for good reason; pocket carry, while not a cop thing, is often a very useful way for somebody who doesn't want to draw attention to himself to keep a self-defense tool handy.)

Now, it would be untrue to say that the gun manufacturers are terribly sympathetic to the hysterical shouts from the antigun industry, but they do listen.  Smith and Wesson, after some years of development, came up with a brand new handgun, developed around a brand-new round:  the .500 Magnum: As a carry gun -- for either good or bad purposes -- it would be pretty hard to imagine a worse choice.  For one thing, it's a great, big, heavy sucker -- even empty, the lightest variant weighs three and a half pounds.  It's hideously expensive to practice with -- each trigger pull is going to throw almost three bucks downrange.

Basically, it's designed for folks for whom dealing with humongous recoil is a lot of fun, who are maybe going to be hunting something like grizzly bears with a handgun, and who have definitely have lots of money -- forgetting ammo, the gun itself is going to run around a grand.

Surely, it's something that even the hysterics at the Brady Center and the VPC couldn't complain about.  Heck, if Plaxico Burress had been trying to hide .500 Magnum in his shorts --

No, I'm not going to go there.  Never mind.  Back to the antgun folks.  Having nothing real to complain about, they decide that the .500 is a "big boomer" (yeah, it is; I've been around one going off, once; it is kind of loud) and a "vest buster".

There's just no pleasing some people.

Jennifer Abel is a brilliant libertarian writer and master of the devastating observation:

You know those amusement-park shooting galleries where you use an air rifle to knock down multiple rows of moving mechanical ducks? The way they work is, you shoot at the targets all you want, and none of the targets can shoot back.

Most schools and workplaces operate on the same principle.

You can find the whole thing through Jennifer's blog, Ravings of a Feral Genius.

... which is what the name sounded like to me.  Lots of those bigname law firms have what are, to my eyes and ears, funny names.

Apparently, I'm about the only person in the country not to have previously heard about the famous football player, Plaxico Burress, who achieved even greater fame the other day when he managed to:

1. Clumsily shoot himself in the right thigh with a Glock, in a bar/restaurant, and simultaneously and not coincidentally arrange to
   
2. Get himself charged with carrying a handgun without a license, in New York, where they're fairly serious about that sort of thing.
   

The second is kind of a big deal.  Where I live, carrying without a permit is a crime, sure, but it's a gross misdemeanor -- for a first offense; with a clean record, we're talking a fine and some community service, maybe. 

In New York, upon conviction, it's three and a half years enjoying state hospitality, with no probation. Ouch.

Different folks have weighed in on different aspects of it.

Over at Simple Justice, in the comments, Scott Greenfield's taking another shot at Scalia's Uriah Heep-like judicial modesty in one part of the Heller decision.  (Alas, Scalia followed universal SCOTUS precedent of not running an opinion by me; I'd have suggested taking the bad paragraph out, honest.)  Scott was also one of the bunches of folks pointing to Kopel's piece (here, by way of Doug Berman), arguing strongly (if perhaps a bit prematurely) that New York's law is unconstitutional.

I'll leave the unconstitutional part, for the moment, to the lawyers.  Philosophically, I'm enough of a legal deconstructionist to say that what's unconstitutional is what a bunch of folks wearing the right robes are willing to say is unconstitutional and frighten other folks into not doing.

Forget the legal issue -- what's more important is that it's fucked up, from the start.

For those not familiar with New York's fairly restrictive handgun permit law, Scott sums it up nicely at the link above. (Orthogonally: the Sullivan act was originally an artifact of Tammany Hall, passed to make it easy to for "Big Tim" Sullivan to make sure that he and his bodyguards were armed, their political opponents both unarmed, and easy to frame by the simple expedient of slipping a gun into their pocket and arresting them. Which is why some Tammany opponents took to sewing their pockets shut.)  

Less nicely -- if you want a carry permit in New York:  first have tons of money, and then spend lots of it carefully, and remember that if it's delivered in a paper bag to the local precinct, if somebody gets mad it you, it's a "bribe", and not a "political contribution".  Political contributions are safer, but prepare to make yourself very popular with at least a lot of politicians, even if you're unpopular with some -- think Donald Trump, Barry Slotnick, Raoul Felder, and Robert DiNiro.

Now, there's something more than a little strange about that, in lots of ways. Let's back up a moment.

When you're out and about, keep an eye for armed security guards. You'll find them, pretty much any time large amounts of cash are being moved around, no matter where you are.  New York, Minnesota, Texas, California, Illinois even in Winnipeg (yeah, the one in Manitoba, Canada), where possession of handguns in public by folks who aren't cops is otherwise unknown.  Bags of money?  Guys with guns hanging around it.

Why?  Well, the idea is that if these people didn't carry guns and hang with the bags of money, other people with guns -- or knives or clubs or pointed sticks or whatever -- would take the money, incidentally hurting or killing the folks who were carrying it.

Money's important; got that.  Money's worth protecting.  Got that.

But what about things that aren't bags of money? 

Hence the New York carry law:  if you're rich enough, and maybe famous enough, you get to protect yourself, if you want to. Maybe.   One columnist finds a racial barrier, and I'm not sure he had to look very hard:

I couldn't find a record of one black person being licensed to carry a concealed firearm in New York City. Despite the large amount of black athletes, businessmen and entertainers who live in and frequent New York. Why don't black athletes and entertainers have permits to carry concealed weapons in New York? Don't they face the same threats as Stern and Imus? Is is that black people don't apply for gun permits or that the board who issues them is racist and doesn't give them to black people?

Which is probably true, but misses the point:  what's worth protecting?

If we were to accept that in addition to "bags of money" and then add "white rich and famous people" I'm fine that we also ought to add "black athletes, businessmen and entertainers." If we do, I guess we're a step toward solving the horrible oppression that wealthy and successful black athletes, businessmen (and, presumably, businesswomen) and entertainers face, but aren't we leaving a lot of people out?

In fact, I'll argue, as Kopel does, implicitly, that we're privileging precisely the wrong kind of people.  Rich athletes, businessmen, entertainers -- regardless of their skin's melanin content -- can, in practice, do the same thing that the bags o' money do:  hire guys with guns to stand around and protect them, which is what Burress, with his six-year, $25 million contract (plus endorsements, presumably not including for Glock) could have done.

But how about other folks?  Here's the thing:  if we accept the notion that the reason we let some people carry guns in public is to protect bags of money or the ability of wealthy people to continue to breathe, the problem isn't that rich black guys like Plaxico Burress might have had difficulty getting a permit and should have hired a guy to pretend he was a bag of money. 

It's that folks who neither are nor have big bags of money get to hope that they're not yet another pointed reminder to the world that when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

And that's what's screwed up there. And, for that matter, in the Windy city, as well.

Here in Minnesota?  Down in Texas?  The Dakotas, the Carolinas, Pennsylvania, Vermont, New Hampshire and -- literally -- more than two dozen more states where you don't have to be a bag of money or rich and famous to be able to protect yourself? 

Not so much.  By which, I really mean not so much.  It's still screwed up, in most places -- just not so much.

More on that another time.

Step one: Walk into any gun shop, and take a look at the empty spaces on the shelves where EBRs/Evil Black Rifles/Semiauto Assault Weapons/Scary-looking long guns used to be.  Watch the remaining ones fly off the shelves, and people place backorders.  Or just read reports by folks who have done just that.  There's plenty; here's one.

Step two:  browse over the the Joyce-funded "the gun guys" antigun website to see the latest reprint of an editorial by another Joyce-funded astroturf antigun group telling you that there's no boom in gun sales going on in the wake of the Obamalection.

Step three:  browse over the the Joyce-funded "the gun guys" antigun website to see the previous reprint of a remarakably similar editorial by yet another Joyce-funded astroturf antigun group telling you that there's no boom in gun sales going on in the wake of the Obamalection.

Step three:  decide for yourself -- who are you going to believe?  The Joyce Foundation, or your lying eyes?

Step four:  Nothing to see; move along now.

This is hard to watch, as there's stupidity all around, but I do think it's instructive.

I'm not a big fan of open carry, mind you, but I know that some folks are.  While, on balance, I prefer to be discreet, as I think there's real disadvantages to open carry, most times, most places, there are some arguments in favor of it.

1.  Bad people -- well, bad people without badges -- tend to avoid hassling people with guns visible.  When was the last time you heard about a cop with a gun visible on his hip getting mugged or being picked out for a carjacking?

2.  A right not seen to be exercised tends to go away, whether it's protesting at city hall or keeping and bearing arms.  In MN and PA -- and many, many other states -- we don't have a concealment requirement. 

3.  It's a good thing, on balance, for folks who aren't into the whole carrying guns in public thing to see, say, an African American educator, like the woman at right, or a web designer in his mid-thirties out grocery shopping with his cute little kids while carrying; helps to dispel the notion that it's just soft, middle-aged lonely guys who get carry permits.

Not my thing, mind you, but there are folks who are into it.  Like, say, Meleanie Hain.

She's a thirtyish Soccer Mom in Lebanon PA who, at her young kid's soccer games -- and everywhere she goes -- she openly carries a Glock in a good security holster on her hip.

Other folks freak. But there's nothing much they can -- or, for that matter, should -- do about it, as she has a carry permit, which in PA allows her to carry either openly or concealed; without it, she'd have to carry openly.

The sheriff, deciding that her carrying openly shows that she's dangerous, yanks her carry permit, which prohibits her from carrying discreetly, which she doesn't want to, anyway; she can carry openly without the permit. 
 
Yup.  To punish her for carrying her gun openly, he took away the permit that allows her to carry it discreetly, forcing her to carry openly, if she chooses to carry. 

I don't make this stuff up, you know. 

She heads to court; judge gives her the permit back, along with a lecture about how what she's doing is legal, it's also wrong, wrong, wrong; she can now carry openly, or concealed.

Much hysteria continues to ensue.

Hence the show, where a whole variety of people with strong opinions and little information on the issues around this assemble to argue about them. I'm glad it locks up with nine minutes to go; I don't think I could have taken any more.

Largely, it's folks arguing about hypotheticals.  In terms of what's actually happened, well, not much; there's not all that much to discuss.  She hasn't taken the gun out in public, because, well, she hasn't had to; she also hasn't rested her hand on the butt of the gun while asking a ref to reconsider a call, or the coach to put her kid in more, or anything like that, either, which isn't surprising. Some local soccer moms apparently feel that they'll be safe if they insist she stand across the field from them; they think she'll shoot them, but don't know that bullets can easily travel a couple of dozen feet.

But the best stupid hypothetical is put forward by one Sean Burke, a Massachusetts cop, Steve Rogers, a New Jersey cop.  (Yes, there's a correction there; I copied the name from the web page, not the video.  I'm very sad; I was always a great admirer of Captain America...)

Now, since Massachusetts has one of the most restrictive carry permit laws in the country -- only IL and WI are worse; NJ and NY are just about as bad -- naturally, Burke Rogers knows everything to know there is about how things work in states, like PA, which have modern, mainstream, commonsense shall issue carry permit laws.

Not because he has any experience with it, or has thought much or read anything about it, but because, well, he's got a badge and good hair.

He explains the problem: in a situation where, say, she'd taken her gun out to stop from being murdered or something, she runs a great danger of being shot by twelve -- he's sure it's twelve -- well-armed SWAT cops, who won't know who the bad guy is, but will blast away at the soccer Mom.

Yup.  Let's explore that.  It's not likely that she'll need to take her handgun out at her kid's soccer game, of course; it it was likely, she'd just not take the kid to the soccer game. 

But let's create a hypothetical, and think it through:  some machete-wielding ax murderer shows up, and after quickly chopping up another soccer mom and kid or two, starts to move toward her.  He's running faster than she can, so out comes the Glock, and instead of her having to shoot him -- honest; I'm stacking the cards against her; trust me -- he puts the machete down and lies down at the ground, where she covers him with her Glock while waiting for the local SWAT team to arrive.

Now, I don't know much about the Lebanon PA SWAT team, but let's make them a hell-for-leather bunch, who manage to get there in ten, fifteen minutes. And when they see the vaguely chubby soccer mom holding a gun on the guy lying on the ground near the machete -- perhaps fairly close to the chopped up parts of his previous victims -- they'll shoot her.

That's Officer Burke's worry.  I don't make this stuff up, you know.  Yes, that's his objection.  In a situation where she's used her gun to prevent being killed, she might get shot by a bunch of cops. 

He's just looking out for her.

Well, that didn't take long.  Among other folks queuing up for the Obamagoodies are our friends in the gun grabbing commonsense gun law movement. 

Here's a test -- and, like most tests, folks who already know the answer really shouldn't shout it out for the rest of the class.

Let's start before the beginning.

Over at Simple Justice, Scott's been known to suggest that when somebody urges a "common sense" analysis when it comes to how to treat criminals people accused, and perhaps convicted, of crimes, it's time to get skeptical. I think he's right, but I also think that it's warning sign more generally. It's not just that "common sense" is uncommon, but mainly it's that it's usually a sign that somebody's palming a card. Or a whole bloody deck.

Me, I reach for my . . . wallet. Or, in this case, some blogging software.

Let's take a look at the first of one set of these common sense proposals.

#1 Mandatory criminal background checks for all gun sales

This is what they call "closing the gun show loophole." Honest.

Now, there's no evidence -- at all; the CDC looked hard to find some, some years ago; if there is any, it's hiding better than Osama is -- that criminal background checks (or other gun control laws) actually do anything to lower violent crime, or suicide, just as there's no evidence that a course of leeches actually draws vile humours from the body, lowering mortality.

I'm not going to say that criminal background checks don't do anything useful. By encouraging felon gangbangers to get adult, non-felon girlfriends to go into a store and buy their guns for them, they do work to improve the social skills of that crowd, and is probably only a few dozen times more expensive, overall, than some sort of Federal Pickup Artist for Crips Program.

Let's back up a bit. In every state, when a federally licensed dealer sells a handgun to anybody, there's a background check through the Federal NICS system. The purchaser fills out a form, provides ID, and the dealer runs the background check through the system. Most of the time, an approval comes back in a very few minutes -- I don't think I've ever waited as many as five. Sometimes, though -- like when a convicted felon walks into the store, provides his real ID, and signs a form, subject to a five-year Federal felony conviction if he's lying -- it comes back denied. It also comes back denied -- or delayed -- if the system can't figure out if, say, it's Al Jones the convicted felon or Al Jones, the guy who has never been in trouble in his life. Most denials are in the latter category, which is one reason that the phone doesn't start ringing at the local FBI branch, and agents are not immediately (or, basically, ever) dispatched to pick up the guy who has just committed a crime and conveniently signed the confession as part of the act of committing it.

The other reason, I guess, is that'd be kind of like shooting a fish in a barrel, and the FBI likes to give 'em a chance. Or maybe not.

Back when the background check was put in, its proponents promised that it would keep lots of guns out of the hands of criminals; as I understand it, the theory was that the clever ruses of having the girlfriend buy the gun or using phony ID wouldn't occur to criminals.

Not so much, as it turns out.

In most states, though, these rules don't apply to private sales, and, sure enough, you'll find some small number of folks doing those at gun shows, in such states. Anybody who doesn't have a Federal dealer's license, and who is willing to risk the cruising BATFE agents deciding that they're actually in the business of selling guns without said license -- a naughtiness that's punishable by years in the Federal pen for each gun sold (ouch!) -- is free to rent a table and winnow their collection a bit. And some folks do.

In about a dozen and a half states, though, state law prevents that. Al wants to sell Bob his revolver, or Joel wants to give Judy a gun for her birthday? No problem -- just hustle on down to a licensed dealer -- whether that dealer is on the next table over at the gun show, or halfway across town -- and then hand over some money and the gun, and then have the dealer run the background check. Unsurprisingly, these states don't show any difference in violent crime, or suicide; equally unsurprisingly, when Alice has gone into the gun store to buy a gun for Bob, her felon boyfriend, she and Bob skip that step.

Not a big deal, either way. Criminals will still steal guns, and/or get girlfriends; law-abiding folks simply have to pay a little money, and go to a little more trouble -- not much -- to acquire guns from family, friends, and acquaintances.

I told you there'd be a test question. Here it is: So, what's the big deal?

I mean, this is a big deal. It's the first item on John Rosenthal's wishlist (and not far, if at all, behind on Sarah Brady's or Josh Sugarman's), and both major players and flickering candles like me in the RKBA movement are going to the mat on this.

So why do all of us care? Why do the gun grabbers common sense gun law folks think this is important enough to make this the first number on their hit parade? And why do folks who believe that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is important hate this little tweak to the law so much?

No peeking at your neighbor's homework; over to you.

There's an old Chinese curse that goes, roughly, "may you live in interesting times." The Obama years are clearly going to be interesting times, in many ways -- perhaps some good; certainly many bad.

Let's take a look at how . . . interesting they're probably going to be, at least in terms of issues around the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms. I'd rather talk about Heller, but let's save something fun for the future.

This won't be fun. Except for right now, for some.

The election returns are in: the coming Presidency of Barack Obama has been a boost to the firearms industry the likes of which has never been seen before. Cheaper Than Dirt, the online purveyor of ammo and accessories, had their biggest sales day ever, the day after the election. Here in Minneapolis, as elsewhere, guns -- particularly Evil Black Rifles -- are not so much moving as flying off the shelves. A salesmen at the Rogers MN Cabellas who might, in a good month, sell as many as half a dozen such reported that he sold seven in the week after -- and would have sold more, if they hadn't run out.

In Minnesota -- and all over the country -- carry permit classes, including mine, are filling up, fueled by both panic ("Get grandfathered in now!") and by folks more sensibly wanting to combine getting around to something that they really intended to do anyway with a bit of fear.

Which is understandable. Whatever else can be said about Barack Obama, he's the first President-elect to have served on the board of a major funder of astroturf anti-gun groups.

While there's issues much, much nearer and dearer to my heart, I'm going to focus, this time around, on the one I personally care least about.

And am going to fight like hell for. It's the ugly guns.

It's right in the Obamanifesto, right here, and that's not a bad place to start, stripping out the vaguenesses and weaselry, and leaving what Obama says he wants to do:

.... mak[e] the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

Probably the most iconic representation of "gun violence" are those guns that look kind of like the ones that soldiers carry. EBRs -- Evil Black Rifles -- or "assault weapons" or "semi-automatic military-style rifles" were one of the whipping boys of the Clinton Era "Assault Weapons Ban". The notion was, as I understand it, that since nobody has a need for a firearm that looks sorta militaryish, there's no real problem in banning them, and some benefits to be gained.

Except, of course, there aren't -- except as an argument for more gun control. It seems that somebody intent on Doing Bad Stuff With Guns is vanishingly unlikely to give up the idea if they find it more difficult to do said Bad Stuff with a gun that they probably weren't going to use anyway; an almost preposterously small proportion of crimes are committed with large, kind of military-looking semiautomatic rifles.

After ten years, the ban expired with, as even Josh Sugarman, one of the honchos de tutti honchi of the gun control movement observed, not much impact; large, military-looking weapons aren't often terribly appealing to criminals, as walking into a stop-n-rob with one tends to draw a lot of attention, as does walking out.

So, who would want one?

Which one? you ask. An "assault weapon" or an "assault weapon" ban?

Well,manifestly: lots of people, for both. The .223 caliber AR15 (the single-shot-per-trigger-pull, civilianized version of the military's M16) and its clones dominate certain kinds of target-shooting competitions, and while they're not my cuppa tea, particularly, are useful for some hunting; in the variants that shoot the .308 round, instead, they are reliable, relatively low-recoil big-game guns. The Chinese and Soviet SKS makes a terrific, low-recoil deer rifle at a terrific price -- my hunting partner's daughter got her first deer with an SKS. And for plinking -- recreational shooting at things like targets and tin cans and such -- they're a whole lot of fun.

But they are, well, scary-looking, and the first few steps along the path from "gun control" commonsense gun safety laws to UK/Chicago/DC type bans start with prohibiting scary-looking things, and cries of, "Why would anybody need . . . ?" Obama will, as he's promised, push a toward reinstituting of the Clinton-era gun ban . . . except, of course, it'll go further.

And it's going to be a tough fight. EBRs just aren't particularly useful poster children for the RKBA, despite the efforts of folks like Oleg Volk.

This will be at least among first major antigun initiative to come from the Obama White House; it won't be the last.

Beyond that, we can expect the institution of a stealth, nationwide gun registration scheme via combination of the repeal of the Tiahrt amendment and the closing of the "gun show loophole" , followed by an an assault on the right of the people, in at least forty states, to keep and bear arms for their own protection. You can't blame Obama for that; he comes from Chicago, where only the police, the criminals, and the political fixers can have guns, and thinks that ugly situation is natural.

And if you think that's ugly, wait until you see the fight.

The Supreme Court finally released their long-awaited 2nd Amendment decision in Heller, and it seems to support an individual right to bear arms...in your own home, in D.C., if your name is Dick Heller, and all you want is a city gun permit.

That's according to Scott Greenfield's analysis of Heller.

They announced a fundamental individual right, yet also allowed all standing regulations to remain intact without explanation, and left 99% of the questions arising from this right unanswered.

Orin Kerr says essentially the same thing:

It recognizes the individual right..., but does not resolve the degrees of scrutiny, does not address incorporation, and indicates (without establishing) that traditional gun restriction laws are valid.

That's a lot of important things to leave out.

I guess today the Supreme Court was doing the work of an administrative judge in the D.C. gun permit office. It's kind of disappointing.

Any lawyers out there want to help me try to register a handgun in Chicago and see what happens?

The murder of 32 people at Virginia Tech yesterday has reignited the gun control debate. I don't feel like writing about it now, so I'll just say one thing that keeps going through my mind:

I don't know anything about the killer, but I do know something about every one of his victims. I know it because it's been true of the victims of every mass shooting we've had in this country.

They were unarmed.

Update: Law Professor Glenn Reynolds echos my feelings in a New York Daily News editorial:

On Monday, as the news of the Virginia Tech shootings was unfolding, I went into my advanced constitutional law seminar to find one of my students upset. My student, Tara Wyllie, has a permit to carry a gun in Tennessee, but she isn't allowed to have a weapon on campus. That left her feeling unsafe. "Why couldn't we meet off campus today?" she asked.

Virginia Tech graduate student Bradford Wiles also has a permit to carry a gun, in Virginia. But on the day of the shootings, he would have been unarmed for the same reason: Like the University of Tennessee, where I teach, Virginia Tech bans guns on campus.

In The Roanoke Times last year - after another campus incident, when a dangerous escaped inmate was roaming the campus - Wiles wrote that, when his class was evacuated, "Of all of the emotions and thoughts that were running through my head that morning, the most overwhelming one was of helplessness. That feeling of helplessness has been difficult to reconcile because I knew I would have been safer with a proper means to defend myself."

Wiles reported that when he told a professor how he felt, the professor responded that she would have felt safer if he had had a gun, too.

What's more, she would have been safer. That's how I feel about my student (one of a few I know who have gun carry permits), as well. She's a responsible adult; I trust her not to use her gun improperly, and if something bad happened, I'd want her to be armed because I trust her to respond appropriately, making the rest of us safer.

Harry Whittington, the guy shot by Vice President Dick Cheney, has had a mild heart attack caused by a pellet that nudged up next to his heart.

That's a heck of a lot worse than would seem to be indicated by those who say Whittington got "peppered" by Cheney's shot. I don't know if the term "peppered" has a proper definition, but I always assumed that when someone was peppered by a shotgun blast, it meant a few pellets broke the skin and maybe hit some exterior muscle tissues. When a pellet reaches the victim's heart, that's a hell of a lot more serious.

I am simply amazed that if Whittington's health takes a turn for the worst, the Vice President of the United States could be the target of a homicide investigation.

After my post about Dick Cheney's little hunting mishap, I posted a question in the comments to a Hit&Run post, asking about the rules for safe hunting. With as many libertarians as read that site, I figured they had to know a lot about guns.

A regular calling himself Hakluyt responded,

When it comes to gun injuries, etc. I was taught from NRA classes as kid forward that the decision is always with the person that pulls the trigger. Obviously folks can do stupid stuff that makes it more likely that they'll get shot, but the decision-maker is the guy with the gun, not vice-versa. So make sure you want to shoot that you are aiming at, etc. I've only been deer hunting though, but I'd imagine that bird hunters have a similar attitude.

Another poster named Pine says,

- Yeah, standard gun safety responsiblities apply, but there's some "special case" stuff, too.

- When you're quail shooting in a group like this, you stay conscious of who's where. Before flushing a covey, you have a mental "safe zone" where you can shoot without anybody being there. Knowing that is the shooter's responsibility.

- When you're moving around, you have to let your friends know where you are. This is usually verbal. The point is that you don't want to accidentally (or negligently) move into somebody's "safe zone".

And someone called rmark says,

When bird hunting, the hunters usually walk in a line abreat so none are in front of the others. The center hunter knows he can't swing too far left or right, and the end hunters only go for bird straight ahead or to their side. To get shot requires someone being out of place or someone shooting in a direction they aren't supposed too.

R C Dean sees it a little different:

[...]staying clear out of other hunter's safe zones is everyone's responsibility.

Getting peppered is not unusual when quail hunting. The birds fly unpredictably and at low levels, the terrain is often brushy, etc.

Plus, when wingshooting it is not possible to throughly scrutinize everything in the line of fire. That is why you establish zones of fire, and why the nonshooters have a responsibility to stay clear of it and shooters have a responsibility to make sure they are where they belong.

Jeff responds:

The whole idea that by "coming up behind" Cheney the victim somehow caused the shooting is just absurd. Given a choice, whether at a range or on a hunt, "behind the shooter" is where you want to be, for obvious reasons. For equally obvious reasons, panning and scanning with your gun at shoulder level, approximately 180 degrees, and then firing, is frowned upon. The description of the guy merely "getting peppered" is not consistent with getting knocked down and ending up in the ICU for three days. It is not uncommon to feel a few pellets as they come down when you are bird hunting, but getting a blast to the head and neck ending in a hospital visit is called "getting shot."

This all adds up to about what I'd concluded from doing a little reading on the web: For his own safety, Harry Whittington—the guy who got shot—would have been wise to announce his movement as he approached the hunting group, so that the hunters would know where their safe zones were. Nevertheless, it was Dick Cheney who pointed his gun in an unsafe direction and pulled the trigger.

Blogger alkali left this bit:

Overheard at the phone bank at RNC HQ:

"... No, Mr. Abramoff's skybox is no longer available, but at that contribution level we could arrange to have you shot in the face by Vice President Cheney ... no, I'm pretty sure it's not fatal ... well, I'll just put you down for the Reagan commemorative totebag then ..."

Heh. Just 165 minutes until Jon Stewart gets a shot at this story.

So the Vice President shoots this guy...

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally wounded a companion with shotgun pellets on a weekend quail hunt in Texas, his office said on Sunday.

Jon Stewart must be beside himself right now. I'm counting the minutes until the Daily Show.

A few pellets of bird shot hit his right side, including his face, but fortunately not his eyes. Dick Cheney's medical team was standing by (because Cheney's had about 75 heart attacks) and they took care of the wounded hunter. He's in the hospital, but seems to be doing well.

Then there's this bit, where the owner of the hunting ground seems to be blaming the guy who got shot for returning to the hunting party without letting anyone know:

Katharine Armstrong, whose family owns the ranch, was a member of the hunting party and witnessed the accident.

She said Cheney, an experienced hunter, did not realize Whittington had rejoined the group without announcing himself, which is proper protocol among hunters.

...

"The person who is not doing the shooting at the point is just as responsible and, should be, as the person actually shooting," Armstrong said.

I'm pretty sure that's not true. It sounds like a blatant attempt to cover Cheney's ass.

However, I don't know much about hunting safety. All my shooting is done at the range, where it's safe to say that all gunshot wounds are the fault of the guy holding the gun. Any bird hunters out there that can clarify this?

Coolest. Video. Ever.

(Hat tip: CrimLaw)

David Kopel blogs about the new Illinois law that "prevents the conviction of a person for violating the handgun ban, if the person used the handgun for lawful self-defense on his property."

This law strikes me as pretty silly: If I had a handgun in my home, I would be found guilty if I voluntarily let the police in for a search, or if a guest reports me to the police, or if a passerby reports seeing it through a window, or if I have a fire and the firemen discover it. But if I use the gun, my past possession of it is suddenly okay after all?

In some ways, this tracks with common police discretion. I know of several cases in which a homeowner used a not-quite-legal gun in Chicago and wasn't prosecuted. This law is a sort of tacit permission to have a gun, as long as you aren't blatent about it and don't use it except in an emergency. So if I decide to break the law, I won't be punished for using the gun, but I will be punished if I get unlucky and it's discovered some other way. This is going to produce some strange incentives.

If they City of Chicago has some smart people running it, maybe they'll realize that the best way to handle this is to start allowing handguns with registration.