A few days ago I caught wind of an attempt by some environmental activists to have the EPA ban lead ammunition under the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976. I was trying to perform some actual research on the matter (was this for real, was the EPA really considering it, etc.) and kept getting distracted by the day-to-day stuff including – shockingly – work. Bottom line, not only was it for real, the EPA has apparently decided to do the smart thing and cancel the public commentary period they had opened. They have denied the petition.
The Environmental Protection Agency has denied a petition filed by environmental activists seeking to ban lead in ammunition, saying such regulation is beyond the agency’s authority.
The agency’s decision, announced Friday shortly after FoxNews.com published its report on the issue, sided with hunters and fishermen who had argued that the such regulations weren’t allowed under the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.
The TSCA specifically excepts a variety of substances and materials from the EPA’s regulatory powers, including ammunition. The TSCA, in other words, explicitly denies the EPA the authority to regulate ammo. The petition was a no-go on its face. The EPA, recognizing that the law explicitly prohibits it from applying the TSCA to ammunition, decided that a public comment period was a waste of its time and resources. Good call. They were also up front with the notification that no one at the EPA is suggesting that such authority be granted.
Now if we can just get them to be as reasonable about carbon dioxide.
August 28th, 2010
Posted by
ricjames |
2nd Amendment, Environment, Law, Politics |
no comments
Apparently Maryland missed the ruling in the case of McDonald v. Chicago where the Supreme Court of the United States held that the 2nd Amendment protections of Americans’ right to keep and bear arms applies to the states and would, therefore, preclude their denial of a handgun permit sans some issue of criminality. The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a lawsuit in federal court:
The Second Amendment Foundation and a Baltimore County, MD man today sued Maryland authorities in federal court because the man’s handgun permit renewal was turned down on the grounds that he could not demonstrate “a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger.”
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
Joining SAF in the lawsuit is Raymond Woollard, who was originally issued a carry permit after a man broke into his home during a family gathering in 2002. Woollard’s permit was renewed in 2005, after the man was released from prison. That man now lives about three miles from Woollard. Defendants in the case are Terrence B. Sheridan, who is the Secretary and Superintendent of the Maryland State Police, and three members of the Maryland Handgun Permit Review Board, Denis Gallagher, Seymour Goldstein and Charles M. Thomas, Jr.
SAF and Woollard are represented by attorneys Alan Gura of Virginia and Cary J. Hansel of Joseph, Greenwald & Laake of Greenbelt, MD.
The lawsuit alleges that “Individuals cannot be required to demonstrate that carrying a handgun is ‘necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger’ as a prerequisite for exercising their Second Amendment rights.” Plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction against enforcement of the Maryland provision that requires permit applicants to “demonstrate cause” for the issuance of a carry permit.
I said something similar a few weeks ago:
A right possessed by the citizens of America is a right, to be exercised or not by the citizens at their discretion and, under the Constitution, without interference by the government. It’s not a matter of why you need to exercise the right or whether you can justify why you want to. It’s a right. It’s your right to do whatever we’re talking about and it’s no one else’s decision to tell you you can’t. The fact that another citizen might not trust you to exercise that right in accordance with whatever level of proficiency they think you should have is irrelevant – it’s your right.
The McDonald decision was quite plain about this and I cannot understand what some boneheaded clerk up in Maryland who thinks otherwise has got going on in his head. If they’ve got an ounce of sense, they’ll recognize they’re on the wrong side of this and will act accordingly. The carry permit should be granted immediately and their laws should be amended to show that they’ve been superseded by Supreme Court decision.
July 30th, 2010
Posted by
ricjames |
2nd Amendment, Politics |
one comment
In the wake of the McDonald decision the law of the land is clear: the right to keep and bear arms is a right possessed by all Americans regardless of where they live. Any locale in America that purports to support the Constitution or to revere the rule of law should move immediately to remove any ban on the ownership of firearms. Yes, Chicago, New York, and San Francisco, I’m talking to you.
Like DC before them, Chicago has rushed to enact laws that technically allow a citizen to own a firearm but has placed so many restrictions on how and where in their home they may possess them and also made it as difficult as possible to even acquire one. These statutes have already come under challenge in DC (forcing some changes already) and have drawn a lawsuit, again. Some of the restrictions Chicago is enacting are clearly in violation of what SCOTUS actually said in their decision which begs the question why a mayor and council would willingly invite a costly legal battle they won’t win. Not what you’d call good stewardship of the public’s trust and resources.
A right possessed by the citizens of America is a right, to be exercised or not by the citizens at their discretion and, under the Constitution, without interference by the government. It’s not a matter of why you need to exercise the right or whether you can justify why you want to. It’s a right. It’s your right to do whatever we’re talking about and it’s no one else’s decision to tell you you can’t. The fact that another citizen might not trust you to exercise that right in accordance with whatever level of proficiency they think you should have is irrelevant – it’s your right.
The actions by Chicago’s Mayor Daley are not attempts to make reasonable limitation on the exercise of a right (just as there a limits that keep you from the classic example of yelling “fire” in a crowded theater), they are attempts to keep anyone from owning a gun. His previous method of simply passing a law banning the guns was ruled out of line by the SCOTUS so he’s looking for what he can get away with under the law and yet still get the result he’s looking for: halting the exercise of an explicitly-protected right by the citizens of Chicago.
Something that came up this weekend, however, had me a bit shocked and angry. I was speaking to someone who is… well, let’s just say he’s not as strong a proponent of the 2nd Amendment, as written, as I am. Classifying us as in 2 separate camps, he asked a question I had never heard before: what are the people on “my” side of this debate saying about the people on “his?” I had to think about it because, honestly, the 2nd Amendment supporters I tend to hang with discuss the matters, not the people. I asked him to clarify the question because I got the impression he was looking for something particular. Basically, he was asking if “we” were generally speaking ill of “them.” Personally.
I want to be on record about this: I told him “no.” Simply put, the supporters of the 2nd Amendment I know want to be able to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights without interference and, otherwise, to simply be left alone on the matter. I dislike the arguments “they” espouse and I think they’re wrong on the matter. But the free exercise of a right includes the ability to not exercise that right. That’s perfectly fine and anyone on “my” side of the debate sneering down their nose at our fellow citizens who make that decision are equally wrong. We want to be able to exercise our rights and not be continually challenged in doing so. Extend the same courtesy, please, to those who choose to not do so. None of the gun rights supporters I deal with on a regular basis are guilty of this and I’m very glad to have become a member of this group. I’m not sure where this gentleman I was speaking with has run into this attitude and I fear it’s not as prevalent as he’s being told it is. Still, it’s something to be studiously avoided and, frankly, confronted when we do run into it, if ever.
July 10th, 2010
Posted by
ricjames |
2nd Amendment, Human Interest, Politics |
no comments
Thanks to Instapundit and the Volokh Conspiracy we see this press release (PDF) from the Jackson County, WI District Attorney’s office. This is an interesting development resulting from the recently decided McDonald case. Says DA Gerald R. Fox:
Yesterday, in a resounding victory for all freedom-loving Americans, the United States Supreme Court confirmed that the Second Amendment’s protection of our right to keep and bear arms applies everywhere in America, and serves as a rampart against state infringement of this fundamental individual liberty. In its ruling, the Court declared that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, and that self-defense is at the core of the freedoms protected by the amendment.
This Supreme Court ruling is binding on all states and local governments, and immediately renders some of Wisconsin’s current laws unconstitutional. Therefore, in keeping with my oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, I hereby declare that this office will no longer accept law enforcement referrals for violations of the following statutes:
Section 167.31, prohibiting uncased or loaded firearms in vehicles;
Section 941.23, prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons, including firearms;
Section 941.235, prohibiting the possession of firearms in public buildings;
Section 941.237, prohibiting the possession of firearms in establishments where alcohol may be sold or served; and,
Section 941.24, prohibiting the possession of knives that open with a button, or by gravity, or thrust, or movement.
All of these statutes constitute unjustifiable infringements on the fundamental right of every law-abiding American to arm themselves for self-defense and the defense of their loved ones, co-workers, homes and communities. This change also invalidates Jackson County Ordinance Sections 9.01 (firearms in public buildings) and 9.29 (CCW).
Check out the link to the Volokh Conspiracy for the whole memo and for Eugene Volokh’s comments about it. He believes that this stance by DA Fox is an overreading of McDonald and Heller. As much as I am a proponent of advancing the protections of Americans’ 2nd Amendment rights, I must agree. I fully support Fox’s refusal to enforce laws that are, in his professional judgment, unconstitutional. His reference to the statutes prohibiting uncased or loaded firearms in vehicles and in public buildings are precisely the kinds of laws that I consider to be invalidated by McDonald. (It’s the blanket nature of the “public buildings” statute that runs afoul of the 2nd Amendment, in my opinion.) I also think that the one about the knives is just, frankly, dumb and I am glad to see someone applying the McDonald decision to it.
As you know if you’ve read this blog before, we have just concluded our fight in Virginia to lift the prohibition on carrying concealed weapons into establishments that serve alcohol but it has always been legal to carry them openly. I applaud DA Fox’s stance on the matter of possessing firearms in such places. (He explicitly states later in the release that he will still vigorously prosecute those who go armed while intoxicated, and I also approve of that.)
However, if you read the McDonald decision, you see the Justices explicitly left open the matter of regulating concealed carry. While I personally approve of permitting concealed carry for a variety of reasons, there’s no denying that the 2nd Amendment is silent on the matter. Considering the McDonald and Heller decisions along with that fact, I think the matter of concealed carry is one that is and should be controlled by legislation in the locality concerned – in this case, Wisconsin. In fact, they’ve actually passed concealed carry legislation for a few years, now, but it keeps getting vetoed by the governor. (It was a close thing on the override last year – 1 vote, I heard.) To suggest that his office won’t enforce prohibitions on concealed carry on the strength of the McDonald decision is an overreach by Fox, however well-intentioned I might view it.
Kudos to Mr. Fox for proactively changing his office’s priorities and enforcement stances on the basis of this decision, however. I would love to see this general stance replicated throughout the nation. District Attorneys’ offices nationwide would be better served prosecuting criminals than in pursuing bogus law enforcement actions against citizens doing nothing more than exercising their rights.
July 3rd, 2010
Posted by
ricjames |
2nd Amendment, Politics |
no comments
As I mentioned briefly when it was announced, the Supreme Court ruled this past Monday in the case of McDonald v. Chicago that the protections offered by the 2nd Amendment are, in fact, incorporated against state and local action much like the 1st Amendment. Even though it’s being widely touted that this ruling has overturned Chicago’s patently ridiculous total ban on handguns, the fact is that the matter has been remanded to the lower courts. The SCOTUS has basically told the lower courts that the citizens’ rights protected by the 2nd Amendment are… um… rights that state and city governments may not interfere with. Since the Chicago ban is virtually identical to the DC gun ban struck down in 2008, most of us who oppose such bans believe the lower courts will strike Chicago’s ban down as well. Chicago might even follow the lead of some localities after the Heller decision and remove the ban on their own.
However, considering Chicago Mayor Richard Daly’s attitude on the matter, it is also most likely that he and his cronies will attempt to have enacted a series of ludicrously difficult regulations designed to make it such a pain in the ass to actually register a handgun that (they hope) most people won’t bother. Or expensive enough that most won’t be able to afford it. This will require continued vigilance. Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox of the NRA wrote a statement regarding this latest decision and had some great points:
But, Supreme Court decisions have to lead to actual consequences or the whole premise of American constitutional authority collapses. Individual freedom must mean you can actually experience it. An incorporated freedom has to be a real freedom.
The intent of the founding fathers — and the Supreme Court — was to provide access. Words must have meaning.
The Supreme Court has now said the Second Amendment is an individual freedom for all. And that must have meaning. This decision must provide relief to law-abiding citizens who are deprived of their Second Amendment rights.
We are practical guys. We don’t want to win on philosophy and lose on freedom. The end question is, can law-abiding men and women go out and buy and own a firearm? Today the Supreme Court said yes – anywhere they live!
This decision cannot lead to different measures of freedom, depending on what part of the country you live in. City by city, person by person, this decision must be more than a philosophical victory. An individual right is no right at all if individuals can’t access it. Proof of Heller and McDonald will be law abiding citizens, one by one, purchasing and owning firearms.
There is absolutely no rational justification that demands the protections of the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments be held as effective against state and local action yet denies the protections of the 2nd. A right is only a right when it is recognized as action that citizens may perform and governments may not stop. And a right is not something someone needs to buy into, either. My ability to speak my mind on the street corner should not be dependent on whether I can pay someone a fee. My right to be free of illegal search should not depend on whether I can afford to pay a certain sum to the police to keep them from entering my home without cause. Laws governing the ownership of firearms cannot present a similar obstacle. DC has gone that route after the Heller decision and has had to change their laws a few times when they were challenged. They are being challenged again and, given the McDonald decision, it’s not looking good for them. Nor should it.
This decision was a fine moment in American history and it certainly something to be celebrated. But it’s something to be watched, as well, to make certain the government actions on the matter comply with the protections the Constitution confers.
June 30th, 2010
Posted by
ricjames |
2nd Amendment, Law, Politics, Virginia Politics |
2 comments
I just saw from a couple of sources that the Supreme Court has just ruled in the case of McDonald v. Chicago that the 2nd Amendment protections of Americans’ right to keep and bear arms applies to state and local government action as well as federal. I am walking into an important meeting at the moment and will write more on this later but I had to get this word out as quickly and widely as I could.
Outstanding!
June 28th, 2010
Posted by
ricjames |
2nd Amendment, Law, Politics, Virginia Politics |
2 comments
I got this from the Facebook page of Ed Levine, a local 2nd Amendment advocate, and my reaction to it was the same as his. A local police department in Nevada decided to “test emergency procedures” by putting an off-duty police officer in the role of a terrorist and having him stage an attack on a hospital intensive care unit.
An off-duty cop pretending to be a terrorist stormed into a hospital intensive care unit brandishing a handgun, which he pointed at nurses while herding them down a corridor and into a room.
There, after harrowing moments, he explained that the whole caper was a training exercise.
The staff at St. Rose Dominican Hospitals-Siena Campus, where the incident took place Monday morning, found the exercise more traumatizing than instructive.
Hospital employees would have been justified in fearing for their lives.
Indeed they would. Here’s something I’d like to ask the imbeciles responsible for this fiasco: had there been a concealed handgun permittee on the scene and he had interpreted this situation as a real terrorist attack – something they went to great pains to make sure people did do, by the way – and had opened fire, killing the off-duty cop would you be attempting to prosecute the guy for defending himself and his family from the perceived threat? And would that prosecution, pressed or not, do much for the wife/kids/family of the dead cop?
There are ways to train for this kind of emergency that do not require putting uninformed civilians literally in the line of fire. The chances of a mistake being made are just too high. I spoke of an armed citizen counterattacking the cop. Please note that it needn’t require a concealed handgun. Had there been a member of, say, our military’s special forces in the ICU and he’d been able to find the equivalent of a baseball bat lying around… well, the off-duty cop would have been fortunate that he was already in a hospital. I’m betting he’d be staying in there longer than he thought, either in the ICU or in the morgue.
Any disaster drills being performed in the public space need to be rigidly controlled in scope and who’s included in the scenario. This stunt at the hospital did neither and it’s a classic example of how not to do these things.
June 1st, 2010
Posted by
ricjames |
2nd Amendment, GWOT, Human Interest |
no comments
Here’s a couple that’s surely glad Congress came to its senses on carrying firearms for self-defense in national parks:
Officials say a backpacker shot and killed a grizzly bear with his handgun in Alaska’s Denali National Park.
Park spokeswoman Kris Fister says man and woman reported that they were hiking Friday evening when the bear emerged from trailside brush and charged the woman
The man opened fire with his .45 caliber semi-auto sending 9 rounds in the bear’s direction. It doesn’t say how many actually hit but the bear turned and walked back into the brush. Rangers found it dead the next day about 100 feet from where the attack occurred. Defensive armaments are important regardless of whether the predator attacking is of the human variety or not. While we here in northern Virginia aren’t likely to encounter bears in our local parks – haven’t seen anything more threatening than an aggressive squirrel, myself – it’s not hard to imagine running into a rabid fox. It’d be way smaller than a bear, that’s for sure, but would you really want to go hand-to-…er, paw with one?
I’m glad the couple is OK and I’m sorry this situation happened at all. I don’t like hearing that animals like grizzlies get killed coming into contact with people. This situation does show the wisdom of carrying a firearm for self defense in a park and it confirms the wisdom of our legislature in allowing it.
May 31st, 2010
Posted by
ricjames |
2nd Amendment, Human Interest, Politics |
no comments
Supporters of the 2nd Amendment, such as myself, listened very carefully to the words of then-Senator Barak Obama, Senator Reid, and Speaker Pelosi and examined their voting and legislative record during the 2008 election campaigns. We found their words and intents to be very clear: they don’t care much for private ownership of guns. Any time they were offered the chance to curtail the keeping and bearing of arms, they jumped at it. To think that they wouldn’t now is just wishful thinking.
That’s why when I read this post by Allahpundit over at Hot Air I was a little put off. In it, he speaks of Sarah Palin’s speech at the NRA convention this year and poo-poo’s the notion that anyone would be concerned at all about Obama’s predilection for gun-grabbing as unjustified panic. Well, newsflash, Mr. I’m-above-such-petty-things: maintaining a state of preparedness and vigilance isn’t panic. There was a time not too long ago that people thought no one would attempt to effect a government takeover of an industry such as auto production or to nationalize healthcare because that would be political suicide. It’s the law, today, and they didn’t look too careful about keeling over when they did it. Obama would absolutely do it if he could get the votes in Congress, make no mistake. Keeping people aware of that fact is prudence, not panic.
May 22nd, 2010
Posted by
ricjames |
2nd Amendment, Blogging, Politics |
no comments
Via The Volokh Conspiracy:
The ban at the Fort Collins and Pueblo campuses, had been scheduled to take effect on August 1. The prospective ban had been imposed last winter, by a unanimous vote of the Governing Board, and against the express vote of the Student Senate. Congratulations to Rocky Mountain Gun Owners for bringing the case.
As the CSU spokesperson explained, the Governing Board really had no choice, in light of the recent Court of Appeals ruling in Students for Concealed Carry on Campus v. Regents of the University of Colorado. There, the unanimous three-judge panel ruled that Colorado’s Concealed Handgun Act, which is explicitly preemptive, had no implicit exception for state institutions of higher education. The University of Colorado has not yet announced whether it will petition the Colorado Supreme Court for certiorari in that case.
Students have carried without incident at the Fort Collins campus since the 2003 passage of CO’s Concealed Handgun Act. The local sheriff was on record saying that he and his deputies would not execute an arrest based on the school’s policy since the ban violated the law. The Appeals panel confirmed that assessment and the school has quite wisely concluded they have no leg to stand on. To remain in compliance with the law, they cannot maintain the ban. Good to hear.
May 6th, 2010
Posted by
ricjames |
2nd Amendment, Academia, Law, Politics |
one comment
Search the web:
RSS Feed
Ric's Twitter