Saul Cornell on McDonald

Can't disagree with Prof. Cornell. From SCOTUSBlog:

The quality of scholarship cited by Alito, much of it published in minor law reviews and much of it produced by gun rights activists with the express purpose of influencing the Court is nothing short of intellectually embarrassing. With over a thousand law reviews in existence, and many law reviews going on-line as well, the entire nature of legal scholarship now appears totally debased. Law review publication, most of it lacking any meaningful peer review or comparable quality control, has proliferated to the point where activists simply seed the law reviews with the express purpose of bolstering specious arguments. The notion that courts ought to wait for a true consensus to appear before turning to law reviews has been replaced by a notion that all publications are created equal. The notion of scholarly authority has almost no meaning any more.

Preach it, Prof. Cornell!

On the bright side:

As a practical matter, the case merely extends the Heller status quo to the states and seems unlikely to change the realities of gun regulation. While gun bans may be out, virtually any gun regulation that could survive the political process is likely to survive the wave of challenges that will follow in the wake of this decision. Interestingly, Justice Alito underscored the narrow scope of Heller’s original holding – which, he made clear, only protected guns in the home. Since most gun rights advocates are focused on the right to carry, his statement in McDonald is likely to be a serious disappointment.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Appealing to Low Info Voters

Pamela Gorman wants the low info voter demographic:



If Arizona could somehow tax their whackjob politicians, they'd run a huge surplus.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Blog Absence

This'll be my last post for about two weeks. I'll be luxuriating on the Jersey Shore, showing my kids what a real "mare" is and treating my internet addiction to a bit of cold turkey.

I'm disengaging the comment moderation in case anyone wants to say something to one of my recent posts - you won't have to wait for it to be released.

And, in case you haven't noticed I'm leaving the blog in good hands, the man who needs no introduction.

McDonald SCOTUS Decision

I'd say 'pretty much as expected' but not really.

It appears the SC wants to wash its hands of this issue. As expected, the Court struck down Chicago's handgun law. But the really interesting part is that the majority say less severe laws and regulations could survive legal challenges.

More to come...

DC and DGUs

An interesting aside in a story about Chicago and the upcoming Supreme Court decision. Buried in the article is this:

Since the ban was lifted in D.C., just over 800 guns have been registered in city. The relatively low total comes as the district passed the slew of new requirements that also include being fingerprinted and taking ballistic tests, which could help police track bullets back to specific guns if needed.

And this:

Washington, D.C.'s police chief, Cathy Lanier, said the city has "yet to have a case where someone was about to be the victim of a crime where someone pulled a handgun and saved themselves." However, that isn't the case in Chicago, and many say that could provide the motivation for more people to purchase guns if a ban is lifted.

More:

Lanier, D.C.'s police chief, said she believes getting rid of the ban has not had an effect on crime. The number of accidental shootings in homes, domestic violence shootings and suicides did not go up as a result, she said. Nor, she said, has the homicide rate gone down as a result of lifting the ban, a frequent claim by gun rights advocates.

"I just hope that there's not a thought that allowing people to legally register guns is going to have a big impact on crime," she said. "It certainly hasn't here."

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Sentencing Disparity

Two headlines:

Man gets 15 years for fatal club shooting

Man gets 30-year sentence for shooting at cop

I realize there are many variables, one's in Florida, one's in Iowa, not to mention the backgrounds of the offenders. But I couldn't help but notice that the life of a cop is so much more valuable that actually killing someone who is not in law enforcement gets you half as much time as just shooting AT a cop.

What's your opinion? Is something wrong with that? Please leave a comment.

Murder - Suicide in Kentucky

Local 12 Cincinnati reports on the latest. The action took place in Northern Kentucky.

One resident on Vice Lane said she was inside when she heard what sounded like firecrackers going off. When she looked outside, she saw 42 year-old Denise Pauly in the street dead from a gunshot wound.

Her ex-husband, Dean Pauly was also suffering from what appears to be a self-inflicted gunshot wound. He was taken to University Hospital where he was listed in critical condition. Pauly died Sunday from his injuries.

I sometimes read a couple sites dedicated to reporting DGUs. They publish interesting stories, about a thousand a year or so. But, in order to come up with them they employ the efforts of a small army of folks all across the country sending in the links. If they relied on the main stream media, straight Google searches, and other simple means, they'd come up practically empty.

On the other hand, stories of men killing their wives and turning the gun on themselves, and the like, are so much more numerous that they appear daily at the stroke of a key.

Why do you think that is? Some say it's a conspiracy on the part of the anti-gun media. But, doesn't the internet overcome that? Is Google in on the conspiracy? Of course not.

The reason is simple, in spite of what John Lott says and what the rest of the pro-gun crowd keep repeating, true DGUs are rare and true misuse of firearms is very very frequent.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.