Justice Department lawyer Joshua Waldman argued that demanding identification "promotes the right to travel by protecting everyone's safety."How much more Orwellian can you get? Protecting a right by restricting it?
Among the cases denied review were Seegars v. Gonzales (05-365), an attempt by five Washington, D.C., residents seeking to revive their challenge to D.C.'s strong anti-gun law... Chief Justice Roberts was recused in the D.C. case because he was on the D.C. Circuit when it denied en banc review of the denial of standing to the gun fanciers.I had forgotten about the Roberts recusal. Remember, Roberts is on the court replacing Rehnquist, most likely a solid pro-gun vote. If he had to recuse himself from Seegars, the results could have been a disaster for gun rights. The vote-counting is down to the wire as it is, without any recusal issues from our side. Note that Alito will not have recusal issues for Parker, but Roberts may, since both cases were before the DC Circuit around the same time. I don't recall Roberts voting on anything related to Parker, or serving on any of its panels, but memory is a whatchamacallit.
The provisions of this section shall not apply to firearms shows held in any town with a population of not less than 1,995 and not more than 2,010, according to the 1990 United States census.That has GOT to have been written to exclude a specific town from the bill. Probably the legislator's hometown or some such favoritism, written to avoid being technically "favoritism" because it applies to all towns of the right size... and just happens to define the "right size" narrowly enough to exclude all but one.
"The town's primary claim to fame is its Hillsville Flea Market (more properly known as the VFW Flea Market & Gun Show), which has been called the largest American flea market to the east of the Mississippi River. It is held twice a year; in 2004, the Labor Day show attracted 650,000 visitors, and the Memorial Day show attracted 250,000 visitors. Vendors and customers have arrived from as far away as Germany, Africa, and South Korea."Well isn't that interesting. "Let's regulate all the gun shows -- except this one."
My single word? Sue. Just as Konie v LA is perhaps the ideal jackbooted-thugs lawsuit, this situation makes a perfect vehicle for overturning the felon-in-possession law. The fact is, it's remarkably easy to run afoul of our nation's gun laws without any ill intent; the people who do should not lose their right to self-defense because they aren't legal experts or made a non-violent mistake. Criminals can always arm themselves; mostly law abiding citizens shouldn't be left helpless.
Rebecca had owned the gun since escaping from her husband. She bought it after the required 10-day waiting period and registered it in her name. She knew the police couldn't always be around to protect her. A gun leveled the playing field against a man bigger and stronger than she was. Maybe it would save her from becoming one of the 1,300 people killed in the United States each year in domestic violence attacks.
One evening last August, Rebecca was making the long drive home from Mill Valley, where she had to drop off some papers for a client. She stopped at an Albertsons supermarket in Half Moon Bay. She paid for her groceries, picked up the shopping bag and her wallet but left her purse at the end of the checkout counter.
The momentary lapse plunged her into a legal mess that has turned her from victim to criminal. She was arrested for carrying a loaded gun and sentenced last month by a San Mateo County court to 10 days in jail and 18 months' probation. Her conviction means she can no longer possess a gun, and it might jeopardize her participation in the Confidential Address Program.
Illegal civilian possession of small arms usually starts with weapons that were brought and produced in a legal way, until they become part of the illicit market after being lost, robed or transferred in any way from the legal owner to another person that couldn?t get them through the legal way. One of the sources of the illegal market are the legal owners, there is an evident need for the enactment and enforcement of civilian possession regulations, with a view to preventing such flows from taking place.Yeah, I know, no surprise. What is surprising is what they said next:
It is important to underscore that the discussions on regulation and control of civilian possession of SALW do not necessarily presuppose support for outright prohibitions, bans or comprehensive restrictions. While in some societies such measures may have yielded positive results, in others the possession of firearms as means of self-defence is regarded as a legitimate individual right. The lack of unequivocal empirical evidence in support of either approach suggests that the decision to impose bans or comprehensive restrictions on the possession of SALW by civilians is a matter best left for each State to decide, in light of its domestic circumstances and in accordance with its constitutional principles.Interesting. Admittedly, as the government of a sovereign state, Mexico is not likely to favor reducing its own authority in favor of UN regulation. But it's still interesting that they went from blaming legal gun owners for the problem of gun crime to a paragraph suggesting that the UN not regulate the issue closely. The next paragraph can be effectively paraphrased as "Let's outlaw theft and smuggling again, since it didn't work the first time."
1. The property, possession and carrying of weapons should be authorized through the expedition of licenses that should consider the following criteria:This is exactly what gun banners want: legislation that transfer the right of self-defense into a limited, licensed privilege requiring substantial effort to comply with, and which can be narrowed further and further by beaurocratic fiat and finally eliminated completely. To allow this to be implemented is to surrender control of force to the government.
a) Minimal age
b) Criminal record or any history of interfamilial violence
c) Prove of a legitimate reason to acquire a weapon.
d) Knowledge of laws related to arms.
e) Prove the training in the use of the weapon in a safe way.
f) Prove that the weapon can be stored in a safe place.
2. Limit the sale of ammunitions to those who posses a valid license of property, possession and/or carrying of weapons, and will only be sell ammunitions to the type of weapon mentioned in the license and in a reasonable number of them.Yet more government control, seeking to ensure that everyone in possession of a firearm must come begging back to the govermment every time they want to shoot it. From a practical perspective, as well, many people do not understand how much ammunition an active shooter can go through; a thousand rounds in each caliber is not unusual. It's just another way to make it inconvenient and expensive for individuals to possess firearms and practice shooting them.
3. Licenses should have an expiration date and be subject to a periodical re-expedition after being proved that the person has no criminal records, besides any other requirement.... and, of course, providing further inconvenience and annoyance to gun owners, requiring them to re-establish their "fitness" on a regular basis. Wouldn't it be simpler to lock up people who can't be trusted with firearms when they demonstrate that they can't be trusted?
4. It should be forbidden for civilians to posses weapons designed for military use, not suitable for legitimate self-defense purposes (i.e. automatic and semiautomatic assault rifles, machine guns and light weapons in general)?Because, god forbid, a government of governments would never want to risk one of its members being overthrown and replaced with a democracy.
5. All weapons possessors should ensure a safe storage and keep separate storages for the weapon and the ammunitions.... and there goes the 4th Amendment. Governments really have no respect for basic rights, and the UN insists on repeatedly demonstrating this.
6. establish measures that allow authorities to seize the weapon when the licenses are revoked or when it can be proved that the owners, in events that take place after the license issuance, do not have the capacity of using them in a safe way.So, if you manage to get a license in the first place, the government is permitted to take your firearms away from you if you "do not have the capacity of using them safely", in addition to periodic license renewals and criminal background checks. Those words are a goldmine for beaurocrats. They'll be able to justify almost any seizure under that clause, because apparantly self-defense is not a legitimate use. It's not "safe". Someone -- the criminal -- might get hurt.
7. Have trustworthy records that contain information about the license of the salesman, the buyer, the type of weapon and the type of ammunition (brand, caliber and serial number), besides from having certificates for the final user.So how will these records be used? I can see no legitimate purpose.
8. Establish criminal or administrative sanctions when the dispositions on possession are violated.heh. Yes, breaking the law should have punishment attached.
9. Have amnesties to promote the hand out of legal weapons and the ones that are not being used in exchange of money or food. These programs should have gender perspective. In order to prevent their resale or diversion to the illicit market, weapons collected through these initiatives should be destroyed as soon as possible, where appropriate and in accordance with national legislation.What the hell does "gender perspective" have to do with anything? For that matter, once the weapons are in the hands of government, what exactly is the reason we should be trying to prevent their legal resale? But I must admit, I have no objection to the hand out of legal weapons... though I somehow doubt that the true intent of that provision survived translation.
10. States should cooperate in the exchange of information, mobilization of resources for training and exploration of alternatives for national legislation harmonization.... and we can all sing Kumbaya together, while applying as much international pressure on the US to ban those nasty guns, because the people of the United States should be "harmonized" with international gun laws whether they like it or not.
11. Involve international organizations and civil society in assisting States for the effective implementation of these principles.I think this means that the UN should support non-governmental organizations in the United States lobbying our government to regulate firearms in express violation of our Constitution. I find that offensive, particularly in light of the paragraph at the beginning explicitly saying that the regulation of firearms is a matter for an individual state.
"He's a great marksman -- he can do double clays," she says, meaning he can hit two clay pigeon targets thrown simultaneously into the air before either hits the ground.While this is of course no guaranty of his views on the 2nd Amendment, it's a big hint that he's NOT an anti-gun bigot. Put together his judicial philosophy -- a strict constructionist -- together with a skilled shooter, and the Rybar case, and we're likely to end up at a strongly positive view of firearms.
Councilor Rob Consalvo wants to put a tracking device into newly manufactured guns and have legal gun owners retrofit their firearms so owners and police can locate and retrieve stolen guns the same way police use a computer chip to locate stolen cars.Let's hope Smith and Wesson learned from their mistake in signing the Clinton deal.