Patterico's Pontifications

11/26/2007

JCG on the Second Amendment Case

Filed under: Civil Liberties,Constitutional Law,Court Decisions,General — Patterico @ 7:58 pm

Jan Crawford Greenburg has a post that begins:

The other day I spent most of the morning with a .38 in my hand.

She makes some predictions about the upcoming Second Amendment case in the Supreme Court.

You’d do well not to argue with her.

UPDATE: Some commenters decided to argue with her, despite my warnings, and got Jan to issue an update correcting her statement that only few states issue concealed weapons permits.

This shows that she is intellectually honest, which we already knew.

44 Responses to “JCG on the Second Amendment Case”

  1. You’d do well not to argue with her.

    Why? A thousand lawyers have written more cogently and on point in Shotgun News alone.

    nk (09a321)

  2. I know you’re going to delete this comment because you always do, but wow she’s hot. And this was before she had a .38 in her hand. Now?

    Don’t even ask.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  3. So we figured we’d hear the other side, out at the gun shop in Virginia, which not only allows private ownership of handguns, but is one of the few states where a citizen without a police record can get a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

    If 48 out of 50 is “a few”.

    A correction for me too. “A thousand lawyers … in Shotgun News” is an eaxaggeration.

    nk (09a321)

  4. Heh. Three of us have made that point in the thread already. I was a bit more conservative at 38, as I limited myself to shall-issue states.

    Xrlq (8b1564)

  5. “If 48 out of 50 is “a few”.”
    Actually, it’s 39 out of 50 – still quite more than a few.

    tmac (5408eb)

  6. News to me. I’m not a gun nut, er, enthusiast, like many of you, so I haven’t kept up with all them there laws.

    Interesting.

    Christoph, I’m not going to delete your comment. But you gotta decide for yourself how much of a bonehead you want to look like. Do you also do wolf whistles out of car windows?

    Patterico (faeccf)

  7. Anyone have a link to the list of shall carry states?

    Patterico (faeccf)

  8. The NRA says there are 36 shall issue states. Maybe it’s a definitional question.

    Patterico (faeccf)

  9. I didn’t see that she had comments. Anyway, I’d rather talk to Patterico.

    nk (09a321)

  10. I’ll do an update that takes issue with that line if you guys can agree on the relevant number, and back it up.

    Patterico (faeccf)

  11. Patterico #8,

    The lady did write, “a citizen without a police record can get a permit to carry a concealed weapon”. (emphasis mine) Your link says the same thing.

    nk (09a321)

  12. Wikipedia agrees that there are 48 states that allow concealed carry, 39 of them “shall issue”, and only Illinois, Wisconsin and D.C. that don’t.

    nk (09a321)

  13. My link implies that all the “RTC” states are states allowing *concealed* weapons — but it doesn’t clearly say it.

    Wikipedia is only a beginning to research, not an end.

    Patterico (faeccf)

  14. carry permits easy to get in oregon, along with many other things. i had never seen shurikens (martial arts throwing stars) for sale before, told gunstore guy they’re illegal in california.

    if the supreme court upholds the d.c. ban, 90% of american gun owners who aren’t interested in parsing nuances about well-regulated militias will feel like there’s no second amendment left at all, but they still won’t voluntarily disarm no matter what the law says. i’m not as optimistic as jan crawford greenburg about this; the current court doesn’t stand up for citizens against the government very often.

    assistant devil's advocate (54f5f2)

  15. My link implies that all the “RTC” states are states allowing *concealed* weapons — but it doesn’t clearly say it.

    That’s what it means. Agreeing on the precise number of RTC states is tough, as it’s largely a matter of semantics. The lowest defensible number is 37, based on the number that either issue concealed weapons permits on a shall-issue basis, or allow concealed carry without a permit (VT) or both (AK). Another is the NRA’s figure of 40, which captures the fact that a few nominally “may-issue” states are really “do-issue.” But NK’s number of 48 is also defensible, on the theory that only two states – IL and WI – prohibit concealed carry altogether.

    Xrlq (8b1564)

  16. The lady did write, “a citizen without a police record can get a permit to carry a concealed weapon”. (emphasis mine) Your link says the same thing.

    Right, and it would also be odd to exclude Vermont from the “few” such states solely because a citizen can’t get a permit he doesn’t need.

    Xrlq (8b1564)

  17. This is a common problem, the bulk of the news media – being of the Coasts ie., New York, D.C. or LA – do not realize that it is in fact they that live in the exceptions, not the rest of us in “fly over country”.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  18. X, gimme your best link which clearly substantiates the business about concealed carry.

    Patterico (faeccf)

  19. Well, Clayton Cramer said his carry permits gave him the right to carry in 38 states as of this past February, and Cramer’s a pretty cautious fellow.

    Mike Lief (e6260e)

  20. Cross-referencing this open carry map with Xrlq’s, we can also see that more than half the states prefer concealed carry to open carry.

    nk (09a321)

  21. You’d do well not to argue with her.

    You know what they say… n armed society is a polite society. :)

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  22. Xrlq is correct, as is Clayton.

    More generally: the incorrect belief that commonsense, mainstream, “shall issue” handgun permit laws like more than 40 states have are rare is a very common one, particularly in the discriminatory-issue states, like California and New York. But the majority of people in the US live in “shall issue” states.

    The laws do vary in details, but the general outlines are very similar, and the requirements are usually about like they are for drivers licenses: take some sort of training (usually, but not always), apply, and you get a permit. With a little trouble, most people can get permits valid in more than thirty states — in your case, it would possibly be fewer, as some states (Michigan, for example) will only recognize a permit issued by one’s state of residence, and LA County is known to be one of the more difficult places to get one (although, so I’m told, many folks in your job can get one — and no, I’m not asking if you have one).

    Joel Rosenberg (677e59)

  23. Oh: and the issue, in most states, isn’t a “police record”, but a criminal record. Having had police contacts — or even being arrested — isn’t an automatic disqualifier. As a local attorney who handles permit denials keeps pointing out in appeals, an “arrest” (and the subsequent police record) isn’t a record of something that an applicant has done, but something that a police officer has done. In my own Minnesota, that can be used as a basis to deny a permit application, but our law requires a finding of fact that the applicant is “substantially likely” to be dangerous to self or others, not a finding of fact that he or she has been arrested, even repeatedly.

    Joel Rosenberg (677e59)

  24. Ms. Greenburg has updated her post, in a very nice way.

    I The “gun-nut” lawyers I read have not been all that sure about Souter and Kennedy since Planned Parenthood v. Casey. They co-authored the “undue burden” test along with O’Connor. I have more faith in Stevens and Thomas.

    nk (09a321)

  25. nk: yes, she did.

    Joel Rosenberg (677e59)

  26. It’s somewhat reassuring that she says the phrasing of the grant of cert. hints that the Court is inclined to invalidate the ban. Frankly, I had thought that the phrasing suggested precisely the opposite. But, for obvious reasons, I’ll defer to Greenburg’s judgment.

    It would be absolutely magnificent to have one of the liberal justices join a majority opinion declaring that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms. I say that not because I respect the liberal justices’ judgment, but because it’ll hit the hard-core leftists like a brick in the teeth if their beloved Souter joins Scalius Magnus on this issue. Just like Rumsfeld v. FAIR–imagine how that 8-0 decision must have felt for those who took the position that the Solomon Amendment was unconstitutional.

    Alan (b56718)

  27. I agree that it would be absolutely magnificent if it’s 6-3 with Souter on the right side, but not because I particularly care if it would annoy the hard-core leftists; I think its great when folks on all bands on the political spectrum get the idea that that rights (including both enumerated ones like the RKBA and unenumerated ones) are, well rights, and not privileges to be restricted or eliminated at the whim of officials or legislatures.

    Joel Rosenberg (677e59)

  28. “I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”
    — RAH

    mojo (8096f2)

  29. Xlrq…
    When I posted the number of states as “at least 35″ over on Jan’s site, I couldn’t get a definitive number as I use Packing.org as a source, and their site has been down (I found out when I tried accessing it). That is why I used fairly conservative numbers.

    I looked at my FL license which was issued in ’03, and to which I laminated a list of the honoring states (at that time), and they total 23. I know that several more are now on that list. When I renew next year, I’ll update my list.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  30. Drew, try the link I gave above.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  31. She has a correction up now. Not a Balko / Dog Trainer style non-correction correction, mind you, but a solid one, complete with a healthy dose of self-deprecating humor. Good on her for that.

    Last and least, Christoph is right about her being hot. Not that it matters, I’m just sayin’.

    Xrlq (8b1564)

  32. Her correction is indeed well done and well humored.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  33. Her correction is indeed well done and well humored.

    Indeed.

    Patterico (faeccf)

  34. Don’t make me say “heh”.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  35. Last and least, Christoph is right about her being hot. Not that it matters, I’m just sayin’

    Ditto what XLQR said. Hot and smart. Deadly combination.

    JD (33beff)

  36. Sometimes I feel like I’m presiding over an episode of Beavis and Butthead.

    Patterico (faeccf)

  37. “Christoph, I’m not going to delete your comment. But you gotta decide for yourself how much of a bonehead you want to look like. Do you also do wolf whistles out of car windows?”

    No, I step out of the car, pretend I’m lost, and ask for directions.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  38. That’s smooth.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  39. SPQR – 32…
    Thanks for the 2nd source.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  40. Patterico – Christoph is Beavis. David E. is Butthead.

    JD (33beff)

  41. and, I’m the MadHatter!

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  42. Heh, heh. JD and Patterico both said “butt.” Heh, heh.

    Xrlq (8b1564)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4168 secs.