MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Federal Judge on Trump's SCOTUS Short-List Issues Major 2nd Amendment Decision

Judge Diane Sykes strikes down Chicago gun range restrictions.

Wisconsin Court SystemWisconsin Court SystemOn Wednesday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit handed Second Amendment advocates a major victory when it struck down multiple gun range regulations imposed by the city of Chicago as unconstitutional infringements on the right to keep and bear arms. The majority opinion in the case, Ezell v. Chicago, was written by Judge Diane Sykes, whose name appears on Donald Trump's short-list of possible Supreme Court nominees.

The underlying issue in Ezell v. Chicago is the Windy City's hostile reaction to the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in McDonald v. Chicago, in which the Court struck down the city's handgun ban for violating the Second Amendment. In response to McDonald, Chicago enacted a new handgun permitting scheme which, among other things, required permit holders to complete one hour of training at a gun range. Yet Chicago also outlawed the existence of all gun ranges within city limits, thereby placing a rather significant obstacle in the path of any Chicago resident seeking to exercise his or her constitutional rights. In 2011 that city-wide gun range ban was struck down by the 7th Circuit. Judge Sykes also wrote that decision.

Yesterday's ruling follows on the heels of the 2011 case. After losing in federal court five years ago, Chicago adopted another new regulatory scheme for gun ranges. But once again the city tried to smother the Second Amendment with red tape. For example, it imposed new zoning regulations that would only allow gun ranges within manufacturing districts while also forbidding gun ranges from being built within 100 feet of each other and within 500 feet of residential districts, schools, or places of worship. In addition, the city forbid anyone under the age of 18 from lawfully entering a gun range.

Writing yesterday for the majority, Judge Sykes invalidated all three of those regulations. As she points out, under the new zoning laws,

only 2.2% of the city's total acreage is even theoretically available, and the commercial viability of any of these parcels is questionable—so much so that no shooting range yet exists. This severely limits Chicagoans' Second Amendment right to maintain proficiency in firearm use via target practice at a range. To justify these barriers, the City raised only speculative claims of harm to public health and safety. That's not nearly enough to survive the heightened scrutiny that applies to burdens on Second Amendment rights.

Furthermore, "the age restriction also flunks heightened scrutiny." That's because the Second Amendment, Judge Sykes writes,

protects the right to learn and practice firearm use in the controlled setting of a shooting range. The City insists that no person under age 18 enjoys this right. That's an extraordinarily broad claim, and the City failed to back it up. Nor did the City adequately justify barring anyone under 18 from entering a range. To the contrary, its own witness on this subject agreed that the age restriction is overbroad because teenagers can safely be taught to shoot and youth firearm instruction is both prudent and can be conducted in a safe manner.

In short, Chicago tried to bypass the Second Amendment and the 7th Circuit benchslapped the city down.

The decision in Ezell v. City of Chicago is available here.

Related: What Trump SCOTUS Short-Lister Diane Sykes Had to Say About John Roberts and Judicial Deference

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Boom!

  • Holger da Dane||

    *Choked gaze*

  • Swiss Servator||

    *iron sight gaze*

  • Holger da Dane||

    *Narrowed gauge*

  • Uncle Jay||

    Nicholas Gage.

  • Number.6||

    Camp Perry Stare.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    She used the 'knock that bullshit off' legal theory in her decision.

  • Thomas O.||

    Shalock lock boom!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I'm sure Chicago has a backup regulatory plan which will also need to eventually be adjudicated.

  • SQRLSY One||

    All dead, spent ammunition (empty rifle casings) will have to be given a respectful burial or cremation, at a licensed funeral home!

    (Following the sterling example of Texas and anti-abortion red tape rules).

  • WTF||

    New Jersey already has a multitude of insane anti-gun red tape rules. Which are somehow not found unconstitutional, while any red tape rule against abortion somehow is.

  • Uncle Jay||

    ...and the governor of New Jersey can't figure out why people is leaving his state in droves?

  • Number.6||

    Might be the fact that he gets to all the all-you-can-eat buffets first

  • BYODB||

    Indeed, everyone knows that there is a constitutional right to abort babies. It's right there in our founding document, right next to the 'muskets only' clause in the 2nd amendment.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    And the Hate Speech Exception to the 1st Amendment.

  • Jimbo||

    You shitlords are finally (albeit slowly) getting the picture.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Oh, hey, speaking of deeply egg-headed understandings of the Cuntstitution and so forth…

    Did y'all know that the "freedom of religion" clause has a sub-clause (apparently written in invisible ink, visible only to fed judges) that says,

    "Such freedoms only apply if a wise federal judge has determined that your religious beliefs are "sincerely held", as determined by your federal judge's magical mind-and-soul-reading powers."

  • Rich||

    Chicago also outlawed the existence of all gun ranges within city limits

    Well, then fuck Chicago.

  • straffinrun||

    No kidding. "Maybe no one will notice."

  • Citizen X||

    Is THAT why gun enthusiasts have been practicing on the streets?

  • Raston Bot||

    thank you.

    i'm stealing it.

  • John C. Randolph||

    In Chicago, the problem is former Obama minion Rahm Emmanuel. He's also known for such charming fascist ideas as "national service".

    -jcr

  • Zero Sum Game||

    It's called the "Windy City" because you can almost hear the sound of the wind passing between their ears.

  • Drake||

    I thought it was wind from passing bullets.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Chicago, making the streets safe for criminals for a century.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Professional courtesy from city hall.

  • Mr Lizard||

    Hey Reason repeat after me: This is why many people voted not-Hillary...period.

    Tweets, pussy grabbing, and deportation is all just Statist deck chair Tetris compared to maintaining our patriotic hardware

  • chemjeff||

    Yes yes we know, Republicans seem to tolerate basically anything as long as they get to keep their guns...

  • SIV||

    When it becomes intolerable we can shoot them!

  • Vhyrus||

    I like the cut of your jib, sir.

  • Radioactive||

    can we shoot chemjeff, he's pretty intolerable?

  • deepspeed||

    Yeah, who gives a shit about the Second Amendment when you have someone saying mean things on Twitter!

  • Nunya||

    And I'm college campus settings! That, of all places, is a place where I cannot be exposed to ideas from "others".

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Why is deporting persons here illegally "tolerating basically anything"? Ok. I get it. Libertarians would prefer open borders. But there is a drastic difference between borders that are open by law and borders that are left open by inaction and which create a subculture of people unable to interact openly with society in which gods know what could hide. Until legally open borders are a policy possibility (and you will notice that Shrilly didn't campaign on that) I marginally prefer to enforce the law. For one thing,if it's a bad law, enforcing it might bring it down sooner.

  • straffinrun||

    She could benchslap you any day, eh?

  • The Fusionist||

    Preetch it, I mean preach it.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    You have to wonder what the gvernments of cities like Washinton DC and Chicago are thinking when they play gakes like this. Do they really think they can play the clock out until Liberal politicians manage to change the benches of the courts in question? Or are they merely indulging in extended temper tantrums?

  • Drake||

    That seems the strategy in New Jersey. If a Democrat replaces Christie this year, we'll get a flood of new gun laws - each more unconstitutional than the last.

    Here is the Dem wish list of laws in NJ.
    http://amgoa.org/Proposed-New-Jersey-Gun-Laws

  • WTF||

    New Jersey's current laws should be slapped down by SCOTUS, never mind any new ones.

  • Drake||

    They seemed to have somehow dodged any major challenges so far. I don't think anyone wants to be the test case for a decade or two.

  • KevinP||

    The lower federal courts have been generally hostile to the Second Amendment. They have already rubberstamped as permissible:
    * New York City's $340 permit fee and one year process to get a permit to keep a handgun in your own home.
    * Discriminatory gun carry permitting in New York, New Jersey, Maryland, California and Hawaii, where only those who are wealthy and connected are allowed to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense.
    * A "safe storage" law in San Francisco that requires homeowners to keep guns on their person or locked up when they are sleeping or in the shower, directly contradicting the Heller ruling.
    * A complete ban on any gun possession by anyone who has a doctor's prescription for medical marijuana.
    * Bans on firearms based upon cosmetic appearance. This is the most troubling because the bogus legal reasoning behind these bans leaves the door wide open to wide bans on entire classes of firearms, not just the so-called "assault weapons".

    A Hillary Clinton Supreme Court would have voted to uphold all of these laws and more, including enabling the bankruptcy of gun makers by frivolous lawsuit. Our liberties dodged a bullet with her defeat.

  • Ron||

    I wonder if they would ban my musket if I added a pistol grip Im gona do that. first I'll google to see if someone else has

  • Drake||

    I think Christie vetoed a bill that would outlawed anything .50 cal and above - with no exception for black-powder.

  • Nunya||

    Don't forget the collapsible stock! Scary stuff there.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    One wonders if those big ticket Clinton Foundation 'donors' that are asking for their money back (as if a Clinton would EVER give the money back) might be particularly sore about the lack of play in their pay for play deal, since Hillary's elective dysfunction. The Clintons might want to double up on security, and perhaps employ food tasters.

  • King's Ransom||

    What money... the money Bill spent on hookers, coke, 30-year old single malt and 757 fuel? Good luck with that.

  • KDN||

    What do you mean "if"? It's a guaranteed. The only question is if Phil Murphy will successfully buy the nom a la Corzine (he's only been running since January 2016), or if the urban machines demand one of their own.

  • GILMORE™||

    am I the only one who thinks 'temper tantrum' looks very Latin?

    it does

  • True Scottsman||

    Dictionary.com says that temper is Latin, origin of tantrum is unknown.

  • Anomalous||

    Tantrum is the singular of tantra.

  • Suell||

    Yes.

  • ant1sthenes||

    They're behaving like Civil Rights era politicians in the South fighting integration. If history is any indication, the courts will eventually get tired enough of their disrespect and bullshit that they prevent the city from issuing any regulations without prior judicial review.

  • ||

    My solution is that the Federal Court should hold each member of the body that ratified the unconstitutional regulation in personal contempt until such time as the regulation is amended AND found constitutional. I will even give priority review to such new plans as those people in contempt would have guaranteed standing.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Can shock collars be part of that equation? Just for the mirth.

  • buybuydandavis||

    They think "we'll get away with all we can".

    It's what the Left has done for a century. They don't give a shit about the rule of law.

    And why should they? The Republicucks never fight back in kind.

    If you mug someone every day, and all they ever do is take their wallet back when they manage to catch you, why would you ever stop mugging them?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "This severely limits Chicagoans' Second Amendment right to maintain proficiency in firearm use via target practice at a range."

    It should be noted that maintaining proficiency is the precise justification for the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment.

    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    "A well regulated militia" is a militia that is already proficient in the use of arms. That word "regulated" isn't even so archaic, as we still use the same term in the same way to mean the same thing. "Regular army" are troops that have been trained in the use of their weapons. "Irregulars" are troops that are not proficient--like secretaries and taxi drivers taking up arms against Qaddafi.

    "A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."

    ----The Federalist Papers #29

    Second Amendment.

    Federalist Papers.

    Deal with it, Chicago.

  • Ska||

    That's good, Dave. But why say North Vietnamese Army regular? Is there an irregular? How about North Vietnamese Army soldier?

  • Swiss Servator||

    +1 too many bugs and too dangerous

  • Radioactive||

    yes, as well as large & extra large

  • LarryA||

    But why say North Vietnamese Army regular? Is there an irregular?

    There was. The Viet Cong guerrillas.

  • Conchfritters||

    We have a new directive from M.A.F. on this. In the future, in place of "search and destroy," substitute the phrase "sweep and clear." Got it?

  • WTF||

    "Well-regulated" at that time meant "in good working order". A watch that kept good time was said to be well regulated.

  • Zeb||

    And still is, for watches, anyway.

  • Ken Shultz||

    In this case, it means being trained to the point of proficiency--as stated in Federalist #29.

  • NoDakMat||

    They way I read that is obliging the citizenry as a whole to undergo military training is the real grievance, therefore, they should be allowed to keep and bear arms so they can become 'well-regulated' on their own time.

    To oblige the great body of yeomanry... would be a real grievance...

  • NoDakMat||

    Oops, missed a part in the middle.

    To oblige the great body of the yeomanry... to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises... would be a real grievance...

  • Ken Shultz||

    +1

    It's talking about hypothetically conscripting the entire male populace for the purpose of training them to stand in ranks, fire volleys rank by rank, etc. until they get up to the speed necessary to take on the English, the Prussians, the French, or a standing army of federal government.

    We don't form ranks like they did then, but there are still skills that need to be developed and maintained. Average people learn how to shoot at the range. They teach soldiers that in boot camp, too. Average people learn how to take down their weapons and clean them. I'm sure that teach that in boot camp to soldiers.

    When the Second Amendment was written, there was no standing army. The idea was that if people had the basic skills of aiming, shooting, cleaning their weapons, etc., from having those weapons at home, then there wouldn't need to be standing army. They thought standing armies would pretty invariably turn to be used by a dictator to deny us our rights and liberties.

    So, if a standing army ever arose, in addition to us not needing to conscript the entire male population beforehand for the purpose of training, if average people had the right to bear arms at home, then they would have the basic skills necessary to defend themselves against a standing army, too.

  • SomeGuy||

    You mean like Katrina and the gun confiscation of old ladies?

    You don't say!

  • Zeb||

    "Regular army" are troops that have been trained in the use of their weapons.

    Is that really what that is supposed to mean? Seems perfectly possible for irregulars (i.e. people not members of the official armed forces of a country) to be just as proficient with arms as regulars.

  • Ken Shultz||

    People within the military are presumed to have been trained and be proficient with their weapons.

    Yes, gaining proficiency outside of the military--"as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia"--is the whole point--so that irregulars like us can have the same sort of proficiency as the regular army.

    Whether pirates are irregulars is beside the point. The point of the Second Amendment wasn't to say we should be pirates. The point of the Second Amendment is so that average people will have the skills necessary to defend their rights against regular army.

    In Federalist #29, Hamilton goes into us (irregulars) having to defend our rights against a standing (regular) army.

  • Zeb||

    That's all fine and true. I'm just saying I think "regular" in "regular army" is in the more commonly understood contemporary sense of the word and not anything to do with training or proficiency with weapons. Plenty of regular army people are in non-compat positions and aren't highly trained or proficient with weapons. I don't want to start a whole argument about it. I'm just interested in how words are used.

  • Ken Shultz||

    What does that have to do with the Second Amendment?

    "A well regulated militia" is a militia that is already proficient in the use of arms.

    I even put the relevant text in quotes.

    "A well regulated militia" means something specific. The meaning is specified in The Federalist Papers #29.

    If "irregulars" can also be something that the Second Amendment isn't talking about, then what does that have to do with anything?

  • Zeb||

    It doesn't have anything to do with anything. I was only questioning your assertion about what the "regular" in "regular army" meant.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Taxi drivers and secretaries who take up arms are still considered irregulars.

    Not being proficient with their arms is still a significant difference between taxi drivers/secretaries and regular army.

    The right to bear arms with the justification that irregulars need to be proficient with their weapons like regular army for the purpose of defending their rights and liberties against regular army was seen as an important part of the solution to that.

    I think you're being willfully obtuse.

  • Zeb||

    I think you are a strange person and missing the point.

    There are drivers and secretaries in the regular army who haven't touched a weapon since basic training.

  • Swiss Servator||

    um...Annual Weapon Qualification would like a word with you.

  • Rat don't serf||

    I'm with Zeb on this point. The Army is comprised of the Regular Army, Army Reserve and National Guard. All three are regulated. The combat arms soldiers in the NG are more proficient with firearms than the combat service support soldiers in the RA.

  • Zeb||

    Yes, that's all I'm trying to say.

  • King's Ransom||

    It's exactly the meaning.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.''

    ----The Federalist Papers #29

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp

    Some people don't like to justify the Second Amendment in these terms because they think it sounds like cover for the Clive Bundys of the world. I think a lot of ex-military don't like it because the thought of taking up arms against our own military sounds like treason to them.

    Like it or not, the original intent of the Second Amendment was to defend our rights and liberties against all comers. There may be other rationalizations that derive from that, but guarding our right to acquire proficiency with our weapons was the key justification for the right to bear arms--not only within the Second Amendment but within the Federalist Papers, as well.

  • Zeb||

    Yes, and I entirely agree with that justification for gun rights. Do you think I'm disagreeing with you or something?

  • Diane Merriam||

    The phrase "Well-Regulated" is so long out of use that dictionaries no longer cover it as a phrase. Since the word "regulated," in common (non-scientific) usage requires an external regulator, many people assume that a well regulated militia requires an outside regulator, i.e. the government.

    However there are examples of it in usage at the time which gives us, in a way, an even better definition.

    * If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.
    * A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.
    * It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.
    * The advantage of living a well-regulated life was never better illustrated than in the person of his brother Andrew
    * He has led a well-regulated life, but his virtues are narrow and petty.
    * Lord Byron's mind was as well regulated as it was powerful.
    * The harmonious propriety that attunes the passions of a well-regulated mind, that I blush …

    It referred to something being in proper working order or was associated with self control. Something that was well-regulated was functioning as expected. Government control of the people's arms was not only NOT what was meant by the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was the opposite. Arms under the self control of the militia (which was the entire body of the populace capable of bearing arms) is what was necessary to keep government under control.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The phrase "Well-Regulated" is so long out of use that dictionaries no longer cover it as a phrase"

    The term was defined specifically in The Federalist Paper #29.

    The use of regular is still with us today in "regular army" and "irregulars".

    "Well regulated" in both the Second Amendment and The Federalist Papers #29 means specifically that irregulars gain the proficiency of a regular army through use and practice.

    Average civilians who are not well trained with their weapons are still called "irregulars", and the training and practice advantage of "regular army" would still be even wider than it is today without the Second Amendment.

    The important distinction--for Second Amendment purposes--between irregulars and regular army is still what it was when Hamilton or Madison wrote about a "well-regulated" militia being essential to a free society. He was talking about the same difference between irregulars and regulars that we mean when we use those terms today.

    The meaning hasn't really shifted that much, but even if "regular" and "irregular" were something like military jargon back then, maybe they're still a bit like that today.

    http://tinyurl.com/h6gap2b

  • A Cynic's Guide to Zen||

    Incidentally, the NRA in its early 2017 "Give us Money" letter is running a sticker-based "27 gun-arsenal giveaway with potential 7200 round bonus prize" sweepstakes.

    Felt like a kindergartner putting the stickers on the prize categories. I hope I win!

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    I'd be very pleased with either her or Don Willet being selected. Please don't fuck this up, Trump.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Supreme Court justices are like a box of chocolates, but whatever happens, remember that it might have been Hillary rolling the dice.

    She'd have picked justices specifically because they were hostile to our Second Amendment rights.

  • DesigNate||

    And our 1st Amendment rights.

  • ||

    It's gonna be Pryor. Sorry, dude.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Willet's Twitter game could give him an edge in the future.

  • ||

    I'm pimping for JR Brown or Porno Alex.

  • Swiss Servator||

    The Hat and Hair might be jealous of his Twitter-fu. David Burge should watch his back too!

  • chemjeff||

    This is a great development. Now if only Republicans would cheer on defense of the rest of the Bill of Rights as vigorously as they cheer the defense of the Second Amendment...

  • brokencycle||

    Non-sense the rest of the bill of rights is squarely liberal territory. You don't want to be labeled a liberal, do you?

  • ||

    Now if only Republicans would cheer on defense of the rest of the Bill of Rights as vigorously as they cheer the defense of the Second Amendment...

    Well, except the 9th and 10th. Only filthy racist xenophobes like the 9th and 10th.

  • ||

    Bigoted! I forgot bigoted. Filthy bigoted racist xenophobes.

  • esteve7||

    Progs are the least aware people, or they are doing it on purpose.

    Remember when Texas had their Texit thing, how they freaked? Or when California wanted to break off into smaller states, they smugly sneered at them.

    Now they lose an election and they seriously want CalExit. Cognitive Dissonance all the way.

  • Vhyrus||

    California leaving the union would be the single greatest advancement to American Civil liberties since the 60s.

  • kbolino||

    California leaving the union would be the single greatest advancement to American Civil liberties since the 60s.

    I'd be happy to see them go, as long as they pay a population-adjusted share of the debt.

  • ||

    Just being able to waive their future obligations on the Pension Insurance Fund would help. A lot.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Keep CA! Just get rid of the Californians.

  • Holger da Dane||

    Non-sense the rest of the bill of rights is squarely liberal territory. You don't want to be labeled a liberal, do you?
    Well, except the 9th and 10th. Only filthy racist xenophobes like the 9th and 10th.

    It seems that the 1st is also for racists/bigots, hence now claimed by team red. And I don't see much support for 4-through-8 from either side. I'm leaving out 3, because no-one has it on their radar as a way to stop domestic spying, but I guess I could give it to team blue to be kind.

    That leaves ream red with reasonable support for 4 of them, and team blue with a big "maybe" on the 3rd.

  • Swiss Servator||

    Are you playing "Crabby Democrat" today?

    How about us libertarians just have one little moment of joy because an important right has been a little less eroded for once.

  • Trshmnstr, Grump Apprentice||

    But don't you get it??? The yokelpublicans here on H&R only care about guns and forcing women to have babies they don't want! Progressives are the true libertarians because we support gays getting cakes, transfolk pissing wherever they want, and a general destruction of the oppressive society that hates everybody except cishetero white males!

    /More and more people on Reason as of late.

  • ||

    I'd like to see the doj prosecute a few councilmen for intentionally denying people their civil rights.

  • Deli-bro||

    This! What good is striking down a law if the legislators who enacted the bad law get to write more bad laws?

    I don't want the SC to be writing or rewriting laws (cough John Roberts cough) as that is not in their authority, but the people who continuously deny people their fundamental rights should not go unpunished.

  • kbolino||

    the people who continuously deny people their fundamental rights should not go unpunished

    Good luck getting the voters (or the ballot stuffers, it is Chicago after all) to hold anyone accountable.

  • commodious is fated to pretend||

    I really don't want to see Chicago doing away with its gun control shenanigans. It's like Venezuela, an abject lesson for the country and a thorn in the side of progressives.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It seems to be a never ending argument for gun control, the way the left spins it, too, though.

    http://tinyurl.com/gqgalbj

    On the other hand, if all those shootings happened--in spite of some of the strictest gun control laws in the country--then some people might say that gun control isn't the solution to stop those shootings.

  • commodious is fated to pretend||

    For many people, less control will never be the answer.

  • R C Dean||

    Nope. The proggy answer is that local gun control can't work, because you can just go get a gun in another city or state. They want universal gun control.

  • King's Ransom||

    Universal gun control? I don't think the Klingons will sign that treaty.

  • Daily Beatings||

    Well they can keep their bat'leths and d'k tahgs, but they have to register them with the high council.

  • dantheserene||

    It's good to keep them in one place, where they mostly bother each other.

  • albo||

    Good. But the Left will never learn that it's folly to blame guns for what are clearly social problems. Gun violence comes from violent people, who are nurtured by parents and communities that have failed.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Strawman.

    No one thinks guns cause problems. What people acknowledge is that they are force multipliers. Same criminal without a gun is, in most cases, less dangerous then with a gun. Gun control isn't an effort to stop crime, it's an effort to reduce the impact of it.

  • kbolino||

    Gun control isn't an effort to stop crime, it's an effort to reduce the impact of it.

    By creating new classes of crimes and punishing people who were not otherwise criminals. Moreover, the statistical evidence that is claimed to support this proposition is always on the grounds of "more guns" vs. "fewer guns" (with inconvenient cases like Brazil thrown out) but gun control doesn't magically make guns go away. The actual effectiveness of individual gun control policies is poorly tested, statistically speaking.

  • kbolino||

    Addendum: even if the correlation with criminality and "more guns" were definitely established without excluding inconvenient cases, then it would still suffer from the conflation of correlation with causality. A gun is, as you note, a force multiplier. Force can be used both to commit crimes and also to prevent, halt, or redress crimes.

  • King's Ransom||

    Yes because murder was invented post introduction of the firearm. Murder is definitely far less impactful when committed with bare hands...at least the way I do it....ssshhhhhhhh

  • JayWye||

    gun control makes it SAFER for criminals. Where criminals fear there may be an armed citizen,they don't do their crimes.
    In UK,at-home burglaries are common,because their criminals know that the occupants are not armed.
    Note most mass shootings occur in "gun-free" zones. the Aurora theater killer deliberately bypassed closer theaters for the one that was posted "no guns".

    Another telling factor is the anti-gun lobby's penchant for citing suicides as "gun violence",when they are voluntary acts upon one's own self. They're also means-independent,because a person intent on killing them self will use some other method if a gun is not available.
    it's deliberate inflation of their "gun violence" numbers,by over 2/3.
    BTW,they also count legitimate DGUs at "gun violence".

  • JayWye||

    FEDGOV can't even keep track of their own guns.
    in the news today was another Fed having a machine gun (MP-5/10) stolen from their car.

    FEDGOV is "missing" several thousand of their guns,some being full-auto machine guns. that does not include US military arms losses. TSA alone is missing 100s of their guns. Then state and local law enforcement have guns stolen from their vehicles frequently. Former Orlando POLICE CHIEF Val Demings had her service handgun stolen from her unmarked SUV in 2009,and years later,it still hasn't been recovered. Orlando Orange County Sheriffs Office (OCSO) has "lost" 2 AR-15 kits,and had 4 machine guns stolen from vehicles.
    Post-9-11,several armed Federal employees have LEFT their loaded handguns on commercial air flights and deplaned,the guns being discovered by other passengers. One guy in Alabama stole rifles (real assault rifles,select-fire) and grenades from Anniston Army Depot.
    guns will ALWAYS be available to those who really want them.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    In response to McDonald, Chicago enacted a new handgun permitting scheme which, among other things, required permit holders to complete one hour of training at a gun range. Yet Chicago also outlawed the existence of all gun ranges within city limits

    And yet the proggies just can't understand why we don't trust them on the gun control issue.

  • ||

    And yet the proggies just can't understand why we don't trust them on the gun control issue.

    They understand it perfectly. They're just champions at gaslighting. "We don't want to take away yer guns! That's crazy talk and all in your own head!"

  • ||

    That's brilliant, KK. Always turn their own words and arguments against them. And what they are doing to 2A supporters is much closer to actual gaslighting than what they accuse their critics of doing to them.

  • ||

    Always turn their own words and arguments against them.

    It's one of my favorite debate techniques and so very easy to use against leftists.

  • kbolino||

    They're just champions at gaslighting.

    Quite so.

    "Nobody's going to take away any guns"

    immediately followed/preceded by

    "We have to reduce the number of guns"

  • Holger da Dane||

    They don't understand the meaning of the word "take" in other contexts, is it such a shock they misuse it here too?

  • kbolino||

    Eh, they understand. They just lie a lot.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Acknowledge?

  • Vhyrus||

    If they were Champs at it they would have actually convinced someone by now. They certainly get their participation trophy though.

  • EscherEnigma||

    What, you mean like over half the country? Like the ACA, people don't like it when you talk about "gun control", but when you start talking about individual policies and laws, you found broad support, including among Republicans and gun-owners.

  • kbolino||

    when you start talking about individual policies and laws, you found broad support, including among Republicans and gun-owners

    Such as? What I have seen is high support for "common-sense" measures but a) we already mostly have such measures and b) that is very non-specific.

  • John||

    Yet Chicago also outlawed the existence of all gun ranges within city limits

    Given the success of the city of Chicago in controlling gun crimes and murder, it is pretty clear that the problem is the existence of gun ranges.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    "I call this one blue steel."

  • ||

    Pimento sandwich.

  • Deli-bro||

    +1 crazy pill

  • John||

    The key words are "heightened scrutiny". That means the 7th Circuit is going to treat the right to bear arms as an actual right instead of a ghettoized right that can be violated whenever the government claims it has a reasonable purpose in doing so.

  • John||

    http://www.infowars.com/cnn-if.....president/

    CNN engages in the latest bit of Progressive revenge porn. You know if Trump dies before he is sworn in, an Obama cabinet member would be President!!

    God these people are sad.

  • Zeb||

    Wouldn't the vice president, speaker of the house and president pro tempore of the Senate have to also die for that to happen? I thought the "designated successor" person was there in case DC gets nuked or something and all the other people in the libe of succession get killed.

    And I had assumed that if the president elect gets killed before inauguration, the VP elect would fill his place. Am I wrong about that?

  • John||

    That is what I thought too. But he wouldn't have been sworn in as VP yet and thus would not technically be in the line of succession yet. I don't think anyone has ever contemplated how you would deal with the president elect dying on the morning of his inauguration and before he was sworn in. So, CNN is just speculating here.

    The truth is, the country would demand and I think the government would agree that the proper action would be to swear the VP elect in as President. Since the situation isn't contemplated by the Constitution, that is not totally certain, though very likely to be the result.

  • Zeb||

    The 20th amendment has it covered in section 3:

    If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President.

  • John||

    I didn't realize that. Thanks. So, yeah, I have no idea what the hell CNN is talking about here.

  • Holger da Dane||

    So, yeah, I have no idea what the hell CNN is talking about here.

    The US Constitution has a magical curse on it. While written in plain English, it can never be read or comprehended by those most in need of understanding it.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Yes, it's entirely stupid and, frankly, evil. Why, precisely, are people so insane about Trump? I don't care for him and don't expect much good, but this violent rhetoric is absurd.

  • John||

    I think it is two things. First, since he is not part of Washington, he isn't giving the good jobs to the usual hacks. That makes his coming into office a personal issue for a lot of people in Washington and by extension the media who rely on their contacts with them for information and stories. There is an entire class of people who worked in the Bush administration who have been milling around Washington working at think tanks and on K Street waiting for the next Republican Administration. Well now we have one and they are not going to get any jobs much less any important ones. Worse, the only reason they have their jobs on K Street and at the various think tanks was in anticipation of them being important people in the next administration. So, they will be lucky to keep the jobs they have. This prospect more than anything I think drove the GOP establishment to lose its mind over Trump.

  • ||

  • John||

    I love it that they are whining. Hold it dude, you said you would never support or work for the guy. So why is his unwillingness to hire you a problem? Its almost like you were posturing and full of shit or something.

  • ||

    It is cute that you think they have morals or standards.

    Of course they were just kidding when they swore that pledge to never support Trump in any shape or manner.

    They swear that they are totally behind him now. Why won't anyone believe them?

  • ant1sthenes||

    #NeverWorkInThisTownAgain

  • John||

    Second, no one in the media or Washington ever thought Trump would win. So, they didn't think lying and exaggerating their criticisms towards him would ever matter. Had Trump have, they could have always claimed they were right and saved the country from some great evil with no worry of his actual performance in office proving them wrong. So criticizing and pants shitting about Trump was perceived as a consequence free way to virtue signal your membership in the political class. The problem is he won and their criticisms were so over the top and they staked so much of their credibility on them, they can't now walk back from them without looking very foolish.

  • ||

    C'mon John there are rules to how the game is played and Trump isn't following any of them.

    I met an ex-journalo through my friend who is in politics and he said he was completely disillusioned with journalism when he found out what a complete stumbling drunk Ted Kennedy was. No one in the media ever mentioned it though because they wanted access to pols and the rule was that no bad stories about drinking, women or other substances could be printed. If they were no one would talk to the reporter and their career was basically over.

  • Zeb||

    It really is getting idiotic. And potentially dangerous. I hope everyone calms the fuck down after the inauguration, or some really unpleasant stuff could happen.

  • John||

    The more I think about it Zeb, I think they thought he had no chance of winning. So they viewed criticizing him as a consequence free way to feel good about themselves and be able to claim they fought this great fight to save the country from the threat of fascism. Like I say above, had Trump lost, they could have claimed for the rest of their lives that they helped save the country from this great evil with no worries of reality ever proving them wrong. It never occurred to them that Trump might win. Now that he is won and will turn out to be somewhere in the range of good or bad Presidents and not the end of the Republic, they look like complete fools. So they can't walk back from their criticisms no matter how much reality disproves them. They will just deny reality and live in a pretend reality where the country ignored their wise advice and created this great evil.

  • Holger da Dane||

    Also, he snubbed CNN at a press conference and called them "fake news". He hurt their feelings, so naturally they are day-dreaming about his death.

    It's the same disturbing animus that lead these people to wish a mass shooter would kill a bunch of NRA members' kids.

  • King's Ransom||

    I think their real wish is that the mass shooter is a white republican NRA member that shoots a bunch of white and black kids so everyone has to care. It's absurd because this is a highly implausible scenario... everyone knows mass shooters always vote D

  • Radioactive||

    it's entirely stupid and, frankly, evil....the entirety of CNN in a simple sentence.

  • John||

    And it doesn't help their cause. The Democrats are weaker now than at anytime since Reconstruction. They need to sober up and face their problems so they can start solving them. All things like this do is allow Democrats to avoid facing reality and live in some pretend land where they are still really in charge.

  • Rhywun||

    Why, precisely, are people so insane about Trump?

    For everyone outside of the DC miasma, it's simply a matter of optics. He says things that aren't proper and doesn't put on airs. That is enraging to them.

  • R C Dean||

    Its about 90% style, and nothing more. Most of what his positions are, are not out of line with positions held by a smorgasbord of other politicians or even recent official policies.

    But he is not of the ruling class, doesn't really want to be, and presents as a sharp-elbowed businessman with a big yap. Those people are supposed to know their place as untermensch.

    The hatred for him is tribal and classist. He's from the wrong tribe, and getting above himself by taking office.

  • John||

    It is totally tribal and classist. And like I say above, they didn't think he could win and thus didn't worry about him ever getting into office and proving their criticisms wrong.

  • Rhywun||

    Apparently he staged some photo op supposedly writing his inauguration speech and the press had a freakin' field day with it. It was discussed at length three times during the local news this morning. The Sharpie, the blank note pad, hurr durr look how dumb he is.

  • John||

    These are the same people who spent 8 years telling us about how President Teleprompter is a super genius. Obama never wrote a single one of his speeches and collapsed into a stupor umms and filler words whenever he didn't have a teleprompter to read from.

  • Akira||

    "Well, uuuuuh.. There is this idea that I'm a, uh, great orator, and uuuuuuummm..."

  • King's Ransom||

    ^^^Yep ... it's also about looks. If Trump looked like Brad Pitt he would be golden.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Don't they also have to kill pence, ryan and some senator?

  • Pro Libertate||

    What? No, that's not just evil, it's also correct. President Pence then Ryan, I guess.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Oh, boy, it's Orrin Hatch after Ryan.

  • John||

    Hatch is the President Pro Tem of the Senate? Pence seems like a pretty reasonable guy. So, Trump doesn't have any assassination insurance. But given that Ryan and Hatch are the next two in line, Pence sure does.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Pence seems reasonable to us.

    To the people most likely to want Trump gone with a bullet, he's no improvement.

  • R C Dean||

    Because he's a Republican, mostly.

  • Pro Libertate||

    If Pence is president, how is the VP selected, nomination followed by Senate approval?

  • UnCivilServant||

    I believe that's how Ford was picked.

  • John||

    Yes. He is nominated and approved by the Senate. That is how Ford was selected as uncivil servant notes. Ford holds the distinction of being the only President to hold office without being elected either President or VP.

  • tarran||

    Clinton: [to Leela] Hey, sugar cookie. You know, legally, nothing I can do counts as sex anymore.

    Ford: I apologise for his rudeness, ma'am. He gets this way around meaty-looking women.

    Fry: [to Clinton] Hey, I remember you. I was gonna vote for you one time. But voting isn't cool so I stayed home alone and got trashed on Listerine.

    Ford: Frankly, I've never felt voting to be all that essential to the process.

    Nixon: No kidding, Ford.
  • UnCivilServant||

    I poked around and it turns out the 25th amendment says it requires both the House and Senate to confirm a VP appointment. But it is something that is covered under the constitution as it stands now and not really a crisis requiring an ad hoc solution should it arise.

  • Zeb||

    it's also correct

    Should that be "incorrect"?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Yes.

  • Uncle Jay||

    RE: Federal Judge on Trump's SCOTUS Short-List Issues Major 2nd Amendment Decision
    Judge Diane Sykes strikes down Chicago gun range restrictions.

    This is nothing more than legal heresy.
    The little people should not have guns, much less gun ranges.
    The ownership of firearms must remain a collective right, otherwise the unwashed masses might taking pot shots at our kind and beneficent police (secret and uniformed) once our ruling elitist turds start rounding up all the dissidents and doubters to the gulags.
    Who knows what could happen?
    A civil war could even break out between the general illiterate untermenschen and the enlightened socialist slavers whose only wish is to bring social justice and enlightened form of tyranny to those unaware of the delights and benefits of a socialist society.
    Nothing but bad will result from this decision.
    What was this judge thinking?

  • JayWye||

    It's hilarious that they think the armed patriots/rebels are going to be shooting at the police or soldiers,instead of the SOURCE of the problems; the lawmakers,judges,and high officials.(aka "ruling elite")

  • Brochetta's magic (((pants)))||

    I realized today that if the UN were around when the American Revolution was fought, they'd have been urging both sides to come together to end the conflict.

  • JayWye||

    and we'd have had another 20 year war.

  • The Fusionist||

    To expand on what C. S. P. Schofield said, I suspect the progs are passing as many anti-gun laws as possible in hopes that the judicial currents will run their way again.

    Before 2010, the US Supremes said the states didn't have to obey the 2nd Amendment.

    Then in 2010, over eloquent dissents, the Supremes said the states *did* have to obey the 2nd.

    What's to stop them from going back again and saying the states are exempt from the 2nd again?

    So long as the Supremes pick and choose which parts of the Bill of Rights the states have to obey, then it will simply be a question of which rights *feel* good to particular justices.

    A better approach would be to say that the rights listed in the Bill of Rights are - *all* of them - among the recognized privileges and immunities of American citizenship, hence none of these rights can be impaired by state legislation.

    Then we can put an end to the cafeteria approach of protecting only those parts of the Bill of Rights which give judges warm fuzzies.

  • UnCivilServant||

    The pre-14th amendment precedent of not applying the BoR to the states would be arguable in the language from 'congress shall make no law' but really, 'shall not be infringed' makes it boggling how they could argue it only constrained the federal level (and failed to enforce even that re NFA, etc)

  • The Fusionist||

    Before the 14th Amendment the controversy was over whether these rights were federally enforceable - I would argue that they were accepted even pre-14th as rights of American citizenship - federal enforcement turned out to be needed largely because some people weren't considered citizens.

  • The Fusionist||

    Back in 1868, that was the real controversy - should black people (and white dissenters in the South) have the rights of citizens? Even Democrats generally agreed that the rights of citizenship included the stuff in the Bill of Rights, they simply believed "citizen" basically meant "white." Hence the need for an Amendment protecting citizenship rights regardless of race.

    The civil-rights sections of the Fourteenth Amendment weren't even the most controversial parts - much more political energy was spent debating the apportionment section (Section 2) and the rights of ex-Confederates (Section 3).

  • John||

    Had Hillary won, she would have pretty much completed the Prog domination of the circuit courts and created a five vote prog majority on the Supreme Court, at the very least. That is what they were counting on. They passed these laws so that the new Prog SCOTUS majority could limit both McDonald and Heller to their facts and read the 2nd Amendment out of the Constitution.

  • kbolino||

    Eh, she would still face a Republican Congress. She would definitely try to tilt the courts leftward but would face opposition in doing so. Unless the Dems retook Congress...

  • John||

    The Republicans were going to confirm Mereck Garland during the lame duck session had Hillary won because they figured she would nominate someone worse and they would be unable to stop her. That tells you all you need to know about the will of the Republican Senate to refuse to confirm Hillary's nominees.

    And remember, Progressives think nothing of lying. Kagan repeatedly stated under oath during her confirmation hearings that there was no constitutional right to gay marriage and then turned right around and voted with the majority saying there was. Any Hillary nominee would have lied out of their ass about the 2nd Amendment and the need to preserve Heller and then turned right around and voted to overturn it.

  • kbolino||

    I will grant that Congress blindly believing what somebody says at confirmation time is folly deserving of criticism, but Kagan was appointed and confirmed under a Democrat-held Senate. Moreover, 3 of the 5 Republicans who voted to confirm her are gone.

  • R C Dean||

    She would definitely try to tilt the courts leftward but would face opposition in doing so.

    That would be a new direction for the Repubs. I wouldn't have bet on it.

  • kbolino||

    The same Republicans who cast a total of 0 votes for the ACA? And who cast a total of 0 votes to gut the filibuster?

    Their opposition is at times a lot weaker than it should be, but they offer more than just token opposition.

  • Diane Merriam||

    This ^^ YES!!!

  • John||

    We need a Constitutional Amendment that explicitly applies the entire BOR to the states and that requires all enumerated rights receive the benefit of strict scrutiny in judicial review. None of this bullshit of judges deciding some rights are real rights and others just suggestions.

  • Trshmnstr, Grump Apprentice||

    None of this bullshit of judges deciding some rights are real rights and others just suggestions.

    Amen!

  • R C Dean||

    What's to stop them from going back again and saying the states are exempt from the 2nd again?

    The institutional status of the Court, as defended by stare decisis.

    They won't overrule incorporation against the states, but they might gut it be setting a low standard for review. Like so many District Courts already have, in effect.

  • ||

    This in no way makes up for the Duarte-style murder gangs that Trump is about to unleash.

  • John||

    I was talking to a colleague this morning and he was telling me that one of his paralegals is so upset about Trump taking office and so convinced that there are going to be internment camps and state sanctioned murder they are beginning to worry about her mental health. He was not kidding. They have had meetings discussing how they can get her to seek some counseling or what they are going to do if she has some kind of breakdown at work. My colleague is a pretty serious person and not someone who would do such a thing lightly. It appears this person really is having a mental breakdown over this.

  • kbolino||

    I knew a couple of people who had similar breakdowns over Obama. Not that all of their fears were unfounded, mind you, but they went from (semi-)rational individuals to thinking that it was only a matter of time until the black helicopters came to whisk them away. It's ridiculous to worry so much since even if your bizarre fantasies come true, going crazy thinking about them doesn't solve anything.

  • The Fusionist||

    Plus, when the black helicopters come, the government will probably keep you doped up on some really good drugs so you won't want to escape.

  • John||

    My dad's neighbor is a CBP agent. Very nice guy. He is a 20 year CBP agent and to meet him about as serious and sane person as you could know. I talked to him last summer and him and his wife were both convinced that Obama was going to declare himself dictator after the election and would never leave office. They were serious. They honestly believed it.

    I have met and talked to plenty of nuts with goofy ideas. What made them so different is that they were otherwise so sane and responsible. It was really out there.

  • Trigger Warning||

    WHY'S IT GOTTA BE BLACK HELICOPTERS, HUH? YOU IN THE FUCKIN KLAN OR SOMETHING?

  • kbolino||

    Wouldn't Klan helicopters be (mostly) white? Although I imagine it's hard to pilot a helicopter with a hood over your head.

  • Number.6||

    White linen shrouds would foul the blades.

    Klan ATVs are more likely.

  • ||

    She is not the only one. That is frighteningly common.

    Also, John, that is the kind of person who shows up to work one day with a glock and goes postal. No shit.

  • John||

    My friend is a Democrat. Not a crazy prog but hardly a conservative or Libertarian. If this guy thinks you have lost your mind over Trump, you are pretty far gone.

  • JayWye||

    you're delusional.

  • R C Dean||

    Following up on Monty's name for his Glock in the AM Links, I'm thinking about getting the slide on my high-capacity .45 engraved:

    Go Latin, all classy-like:

    Mortem Tuam

    Would go by "Mort" to its friends.

  • R C Dean||

    A little double-checking with Google translate indicates:

    Mortem Tuam Venit

    might be better.

  • Raston Bot||

    here comes your death?

  • R C Dean||

    More like "your death comes". I should probably get somebody who knows Latin to tune it up for me before I get the work done.

  • Raston Bot||

    And if you ever have to use your firearm in self-defense, then you can bet the DA's going to print that in big bold letters to show the jury.

    DA: "RC Dean claims he was attacked but there are no witnesses to corroborate his version of events that fateful night that saw the death of a promising young high school dropout who was about to turn his life around and support his family. Just look at this Latin phrase engraved on his gun. Your Death Comes. I ask you, is that the life motto of a respectable citizen or a depraved white male oppressor?"

  • R C Dean||

    *raises hand*

    Proud white male oppressor, right here.

  • Raston Bot||

    GIL-TEE

  • R C Dean||

    In AZ, that would get me a divided jury, I'm afraid.

  • R C Dean||

    Maybe around the barrel tip?

  • AlexInCT||

    CHARLENE!

  • ||

    I have seen that sort of thing used in the prosecution of people who h ave had to use a gun in self-defense.

    If you weren't itching to shoot someone why did you fancy up your gun? Why did you use special bullets with magical killing power? Etc. Etc.

    My carry guns are all off-the-shelf except the addition of tritium sights and all of the ammo I carry is Wal-mart special. Thank god I have never had to actually shoot any of it, but if I ever do I don't want some mendacious asshole ADA to have any excuses to demonize me.

  • R C Dean||

    Dammit, Suthen. You're right.

    Maybe just engrave "Mort" on the slide. But that might be too much.

  • John||

    This is one of the reasons why I am very hesitant to carry. I have no doubt I would use a gun and kill someone if I had to. I have very little faith, however, in the ability of the government to treat me fairly if I did. Even if the jury acquits me, the experience of being charged and going through a trial would be horrific.

    The only circumstance I would feel confident that the government would not indict me if I shot someone would be if the person pulled a gun on me first. But in that case, my gun is unlikely to do me any good since the person will probably shoot me as I draw my weapon but before I can shoot him.

  • R C Dean||

    One of the advantages in living in a relatively sane state (TX, AZ), is that the DAs don't feel free to go after people who use guns in self-defense, because GUNZ!!! Happens all the time that you read about somebody perforating a perp, and the DA basically says "Good shoot".

  • John||

    Yes. Even in those states, you better be very careful and shoot the guy once. There have been people convicted in Oklahoma and Texas for shooting a wounded assailant, which I think is bullshit.

    The only place I feel confident using a gun to defend myself in Maryland is in my home against an armed intruder.

  • Number.6||

    It's considered bad etiquette to administer a coup de grace on a perp, but even a crappy defense attorney can gather evidence to protect you if you popped a couple of pills in him. Nobody can predict how anyone who isn't a stone cold killer will react under stress, and given the right conditions, a mag can be emptied with almost no thought, and very little time.

    Try not to need to reload though.

  • John||

    I always tell my wife that if she ever has to use a gun to defend herself in our house, just start pulling the trigger and don't stop until the weapon stops firing. When the police ask you what happened, you say "I have no idea officer, i was so terrified when i saw the intruder I can't remember what I did". No way in hell is any jury going to convict a woman under those circumstances I don't care if she shot the dead body ten times.

  • Number.6||

    You carry on until you neutralize the threat. As we see with SJWs, there's a fair amount of wiggle room regarding what constitutes a threat.

    Although that's not a bad idea. If he's still wiggling, he's still a threat.

  • R C Dean||

    "Your honor, he kept moving. I didn't realize it was from the bullet impacts until I ran out of bullets."

  • Number.6||

    +1 late General Gadafi's Personal Guard

  • Akira||

    The woman who taught my concealed carry class (who used to be a cop and also worked in the court system) said that if you're being grilled about the details of the shooting, you want to say "I shot him until he stopped" and "I thought he was going to kill me".

    I've also heard the idea of feigning a heart attack or a hysteric state so that you'll get taken to the hospital, where you'll have at least a few hours to get your mind together (because recollection of details go to absolute shit during in the immediate aftermath of a traumatic experience like that).

  • JayWye||

    that's why you MOVE as you're drawing (and turn sideways,make a smaller target.). it's harder to hit a moving target,and decreases the chance of them hitting a vital spot. there was a video of a guy attacked outside,long ago,the guy ducked behind a tree,the shooter kept going from side to side shooting (a.22),but mostly missing,until he ran out of ammo. The guy under attack survived.

  • Raston Bot||

    I've seen it recommended that you use whatever ammo your local PD uses. If the DA has a problem with HP, then tell him that's what the city's protectors use on duty.

  • Number.6||

    Yeah, in general, I'd say that 'vanity tats' on a firearm are something you might want to avoid, as Suthenboy says.

    As near to factory-standard as possible, and *if* possible, JHPs or something similar to what the local politzei uses.

    "High Capacity" though? Man, I'd kill for that as an option (no, officer, just a turn of phrase)

  • R C Dean||

    Para-Ordnance. Double stack, so I get fifteen round of justice before I have to swap mags. A fully loaded mag weighs almost a pound, but I like heavier guns for their lighter perceived recoil.

  • Number.6||

    Well, in theory, I could pack 21 rounds with one in the chamber, but the morons in Hartford, CT believe that would disproportionately advantage me in a fight to the death, so 11 rounds it is.

  • Number.6||

    And at a push, you still have a steel ingot to bludgeon them until they cease to be a risk.

  • UnCivilServant||

    So, standard capacity. "High capacity" for a pistol is one of those extra long magazines that makes the grip at least twice as long as the barrel.

  • R C Dean||

    No, standard capacity for a 1911-based .45 is 7+1 rounds. Double-stack 14+1 is high-capacity, for this type of gun.

  • UnCivilServant||

    The fact that Browning made the initial models low-capacity does not reduce what should now be regarded as in the range of 'standard'. If it was built able to take double-stack, then the standard capacity is higher than 7+1.

  • Number.6||

    The *usual* interpretation of 'Standard Capacity' is 'whatever you can fit into the original form factor'. Hence my CZ is capable of taking 18+1 rounds, 'as standard capacity', because the magazine fits wholly in the handle. I can get mags with a 2 round 'extension' heel, but then it's no longer 'standard' capacity.

    1911 was - and is - a single-stack design. There's a physical limitation of how many 45 rounds you can get in a mag that fits in that grip.

    Double stack 1911s using 9mm can handle 14, but the point is that they'll all fit inside the standard 'form factor' of the firearm. Now, you can argue that a 1911 in 9mm ain't a real 1911 because the gun's grip is physically wider but it's impractical to carry - especially concealed - with extended mags. It's one of the reasons the 9mm is so popular.

    "Low capacity" is mags like the ones I have to own in Connecticut, artificially *limited* to 10 rounds because safety or something.

  • Number.6||

    Inelegant flailing in my prior post - DS1911's have extended capacity in those internal mags for a gun of type=1911. But it's not really an 'extended magazine' because it's (presumably) the magazine capacity provided by the factory.

    i.e. it's the mag the gun was designed for.

    /pedantry off

  • Number.6||

    Needless to say, having this (SFW) as a carry piece is really NOT a good idea.

  • ||

    I used to know a dude (insurance agent with political connections) whose carry gun was a full auto UZI.

  • Number.6||

    Makes perfect sense ...

    "This is a nice family you got here - shame if something -- happenend --- to them"

  • AlexInCT||

    Top seller...

  • Trshmnstr, Grump Apprentice||

    That's funny! My home defense shotgun has a bayonet lug on it, and I've been toying with the idea of installing one. It'd mostly be for the fun of having a shotgun with a bayonet, but partially for the (incredibly unlikely) chance of a close quarters encounter where an intruder was close enough to grab the muzzle.

    Either way, I think the collapsible stock and flashlight are higher priorities.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Carrying that on your belt behind your back would be a real pain in the ass.

  • Ken Shultz||

    A lot of it is about jurisdiction.

    If you shoot somebody in Utah while they're trying to rob you or something, the chances of you getting prosecuted--much less convicted--are probably fairly low.

    In Chicago, they probably want to make an example of people who own guns and have the audacity to use them to defend themselves against criminals.

  • Number.6||

    That and the inevitable civil case, unless you're fortunate enough to terminate a felon who has no immediate family; and there are ambulance-chasing attorneys in all 50 states.

  • Raston Bot||

    are there ambulance chasers taking on spec cases where the DA says good shoot and doesn't even attempt to indict?

  • Number.6||

    Sure. Look at all the cases where victims' families are suing police departments after the investigations declare a 'good shoot'.

    EVERY round you fire comes with a lawyer attached.

  • ||

    I have only ever had to lay my hands on my gun once about 25 years ago. Some dude tried to carjack me. The appearance of the gun and me wagging my finger at him was enough.

    *knocks on wood*

    Let's hope that is the last time ever.

  • Number.6||

    BRANDISHING!

  • ||

    I know. That's why I never reported it.

    The guy was banging his fists on the passenger window, yanking the door handle and cursing me for all he was worth demanding that I get out of the car.

    I had my then one year old son in the car with me. I was damned sure willing to take the chance and shoot him if I had to.

    I am lucky (so is he) that he was smart enough to lay off. He disappeared when he saw the gun. I don't mean he ran away, I mean he evaporated. I never saw where he went.

  • gaoxiaen||

    I accomplished that with a chrome-plated motorcycle rear brake caliper.

  • Akira||

    "Why did you use special bullets with magical killing power?"

    As an aside, it's pretty sad that hollow-points, which are much safer for bystanders, are portrayed as "hollow-point ballistic-tip cop-killer exploding bullets".

  • Raston Bot||

    mine have the name of German manufacturers on the side which means Your Death Comes to a large subset of Western Europe and South Florida.

    /rimshot

    Danke, I'll be here all ze veek.

  • Trigger Warning||

    Chicago's one of the safest cities in the world, right? Because of their gun laws. Criminals are afraid to own guns in Chicago. They don't want to break the law.

  • Loss of Reason||

    I think Chicago's next case will be "You shoot your eye out kid"

  • Alan@.4||

    One might well observe that it is damned well aabout time. Additionally, the City of Chicago should be strongly sanctioned,ironed for t he silly games it likely continues to play, or most certainly has played, in effect thumbing it's nose at the courts. Chicago and it's government must absolutely be shown that there are costs to such antics, and that these costs mount up and increase.

  • Bubba Jones||

    youth firearm instruction is both prudent and can be conducted in a safe manner.

    Well, that and I might not have a babysitter available while *I* shoot.

  • SupportYourRights||

    Love it "BenchSlapped" Chicago. Should be done much more frequently. This ongoing assault on the Second Amendment needs to seriously stop. How would the anti-gun crowd like it if there were restrictions placed on other amendments?

    Such as you can practice what ever religion you want but it will be decided what day is allowable and when.

    Or sure women can vote but only during the middle of the given month in question.

    I'm sure people would stand for those restrictions.

  • Akira||

    It's always fun to apply gun control logic to other things. Take the "assault weapons" ban for instance: they say it's not really confiscation because everyone who has one can keep it; it's just that nobody can buy any more from here on out.

    Well heck, if that's OK, why not "compromise" in this way on other rights as well? How about this: gay marriage and civil unions are banned, but none of these partnerships currently in effect will be nullified, so it's totally cool. What if we put an absolute ban on abortion but allowed the women who had already made appointments at the OB-GYN to go through with it? What if we permanently shut down voter registration, but all those who currently vote can keep on voting for the rest of their lives?

  • Hank Phillips||

    The judge does give good precedent. Speculative claims of harm to public health and safety is what the Global Warming Klanbake is all about. Only half a percent (not 97%) of ex-scientists producing screed claim there is warming AND that it is mostly manmade.
    Banning of electricity was the only practical and actionable difference between the the two looter gangs. The Second Amendment is here to stay, and the 14th begins with "All persons born..." Posturing about banning guns or abortions only impresses the illiterate bozos in both camps. Banning electric power to make These States as able to compete with communist China as North Korea is able to compete--is not constitutionally barred. But the Atlas Shrugged Amendment would do the trick: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade . . ."

  • JayWye||

    it's amazing that judges allow the government lawyers and lawmakers to make law based on CLAIMS that are not supported by actual facts and evidence. They claim "if it saves just one life",but ignore the fact that many other lives are lost due to a lack of proper defensive tools. They -claim- their gun control law or regulation will "reduce crime",or "make it safer for citizens" but the actual evidence is far more for the other direction. Their gun control makes it safer only for the criminals.
    But nobody ever calls them on their claims,nobody requires them to provide credible evidence supporting their claims.

  • kenzy9||

    The underlying issue in Ezell v. Chicago is the Windy City's hostile reaction to the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in McDonald v. Chicago, in which the Court struck down the city's handgun ban for violating the Second Amendment. In response to McDonald, Chicago enacted a new handgun permitting scheme which, among other things,
    منيو
    اسعار الموبايلات
    required permit holders to complete one hour of training at a gun range. Yet Chicago also outlawed the existence of all gun ranges within city limits, thereby placing a rather significant obstacle in the path of any Chicago resident seeking to exercise his or her constitutional rights. In 2011 that city-wide gun range ban was struck down by the 7th Circuit. Judge Sykes also wrote that decision.

    Yesterday's ruling follows on the heels

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online