New York

"Mr. Whitehead, it's now a war between us and you've fired the first shot. I will be coming after you. You will pay the price. This is only the beginning and you will pay dearly for what you have done. You will wish you had never written that letter."

Is this the sort of government official we want?  I think not.

Hours after President Bush signed a new law protecting gun manufacturers such as Smith & Wesson from some lawsuits, the industry filed a motion to dismiss a high-profile case filed by New York City.

But despite the law's clear language dismissing pending municipal lawsuits, both sides expect a fight over the law's legality.

President Bush signed the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" at a White House ceremony Wednesday following House passage of the bill earlier this month.

No surprise here.  Now we need to find out whether the judges are willing to apply the law fairly and quickly, or if there's going to be a tussle.

Yesterday, a New York City Councilman was shot within City Hall itself, by a man he had himself waved past the metal detectors. It turns out that the victim was also carrying a concealed firearm, despite having been publically anti-gun for the entirety of his political life. (New York is not a shall-issue state and has extensive requirements for owning a firearm, much less carrying a concealed firearm). As always, politicians see the rules as being "for thee but not for me".

KeepAndBearArms.com has the story.

Early reports indicate that Vivian, who was not armed, ran into the bathroom in the basement of the five-story building when the raid began. The officer who opened the door and shot her may have mistaken her purse or cell phone for a gun, sources close to the case have said.

An unarmed woman is shot in her bathroom, and they are making excuses for the police officer who shot her. This is unconscionable.

At roughly the same moment, John Feinblatt, the city's criminal justice coordinator, was telling the Council's Public Safety Committee that while the Bloomberg administration agreed in principle with proposals to stem gun violence, it opposed allowing victims broad latitude to sue manufacturers.

"As a practical matter," Mr. Feinblatt said, "the threat of unlimited liability without fault will effectively prevent gun manufacturers from selling weapons to anyone in New York City, including the Police Department."

Now here's an idea. Can we get the firearms manufacturers to refuse to sell to any government entity currently involved in a firearms suit against them? It's tricky, because firearms last so long that replacement isn't a regular thing even for a police force. But there must be some way to use this leverage.

A bill proposed by Councilwoman Eva Moskowitz (D-Manhattan) and supported by 11 other sponsors will have its first hearing tomorrow before the Public Safety Committee.

Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum endorsed the bill, saying the July 23 killing of Brooklyn Councilman James Davis in City Council chambers "makes this even more poignant."

Davis was fatally shot by a disturbed political rival, Othniel Askew, who was shot and killed by a security cop. The Moskowitz bill had been introduced before Davis' death.

Y'know what bugs me about this? Well, aside from the fact that the bill is complete bullshit?

The bill was introduced before the shooting. Now, if it had been introduced afterwards, no big deal; it will still be bovine excrement, but lawmakers are known to get rather shakey when one of their elite gets shot, particularly if most of them saw it happen, and the gun-control groups are well-known for dancing in the blood of the victims. But it was introduced before the shooting.

What if the killer was somehow a stalking horse? We've seen this kind of thing before; just when the anti-gun lobbists have something they really want to push, someone important gets shot in a media-centric way. There's a saying concerning things like this: "Once is coincidence; twice is bad luck; three times is enemy action."

By that standard we are well into "enemy action" by now. And we know that the anti-gun groups aren't squeamish; remember the Million Mom who shot and paralyzed someone she thought (wrongly) had killed her own son? I don't have any doubt that they could arrange something like this in utterly cold blood.

On the other hand, I don't have any positive evidence for this either; I'm just getting suspicious.

Adopting a position that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not protect a fundamental individual right, a Northern District judge has held that a U.S. naval attorney with top-secret security clearance can be barred by New York from carrying a concealed weapon while visiting relatives in Ulster County, N.Y.

David D. Bach, who lives in Virginia Beach and occasionally visits family in Saugerties, N.Y., challenged a state law that effectively bars him from obtaining the requisite license to carry a pistol or revolver when he travels within New York. Under state law, since Bach lives out of state and has no employment or business interests in New York, he is ineligible for a pistol permit.

This sounds like it has the potential to be an excellent case for securing a nationwide right to concealed-carry, but as the case currently stands, it sets a horrible precedent. (Of course, there are lots of other cases setting similar horrible precedents).

Several bills that would impact law-abiding gun owners, hunters, and sportsmen are currently pending in the Assembly. They include A 3311, which would prohibit the sale of any pistol or revolver not containing a "child-proofing" device; and A 4615C, which legislates how gun owners must store their firearms and creates new crimes and penalties. Reported out of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee this week were A 7039 (same as S 4453), which bans the sale, use, and possession of .50-caliber firearms; and A 8542B, which would expand the current ballistic "identification" program to include rifles and shotguns. These measures now head to the Assembly floor for consideration. A 8456A, which would place many new onerous restrictions and requirements on firearm dealers, was also reported out of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee and was referred to the Assembly Rules Committee. Please contact your Assembly member and urge him to OPPOSE the proposals listed above.

Republican Michael Benjamin believes high taxes and excessive regulations have combined to drive businesses and jobs out of New York. Along with homeland security issues, Benjamin said reversing that trend would be his top priority if elected to the U.S. Senate.

"I'm running for Senate because I strongly believe (Sen. Charles E.) Schumer is leading our state and our country in the wrong direction on so many issues," Benjamin said, citing taxes, health care, Medicaid, foreign policy and second-amendment rights.

Defeating Senator Schumer in this election would be a nice piece of progress. Not terribly likely, I don't think, but it sure would be nice. While this individual is not a Libertarian, even a diseased camel would be better than Schumer in office -- and anyone who thinks Schumer is headed in the wrong direction on taxes and the second amendment can't be all bad.

Plus, I'm not in New York, so it's all fairly theoretical for me; I won't be the one holding my nose in any case. But Schumer is one of the prime driving forces behind gun control. Stopping him is worth voting for a Republican.

Council Members David Yassky (D-Brooklyn), Eva Moskowitz (D-Manhattan) and Albert Vann (D-Brooklyn) unveiled bold legislation today aimed at stopping the flow of illegal guns into New York. Their ?Gun Industry Responsibility Act? (GIRA) would make firearms manufacturers and dealers liable for reckless selling practices that put guns in the hands of criminals.

Under the GIRA, any victim of gun violence in New York State who is injured or killed by an illegal gun could sue the gun's manufacturer or dealer. Both manufacturers and dealers could exempt themselves from liability, however, by meeting a code of responsible conduct designed to prevent illegal gun trafficking.

?We are under attack by the gun industry,? Yassky, author of the Brady Bill and Assault Weapons Ban, said. ?The manufacturers know who the dirty dealers are, but they refuse to do anything to stop them. That is why we have to use the courts to stop the violence ourselves.?

Folks, this is the downside to our Senate pseudo-victory. We blocked the AWB renewal, but as a result, we lost the gun liability bill -- and this sort of legislation is the result. It's actually worse than a simple lawsuit, because if it passes, it will specifically create liability. In other words, judges won't be able to throw out the suits because the legal theories are worthless; this legislation (again, if passed) will explicitly validate those legal theories.

This is the problem with elections; social idiots and psychopaths are the ones who win popularity contests.

An ex-transit cop injured when a pipe bomb exploded in a crowded Manhattan subway station was arrested yesterday and charged with planting the crude device. Joseph Rodriguez was with his family and lawyer after detectives arranged to arrest him just before 10 a.m. at the psychiatric ward of Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center, police said. Rodriguez, 27, had checked himself in for evaluation two days after the July 19 explosion. A warrant issued by the Manhattan district attorney's office yesterday charged him with arson, criminal possession of a weapon and reckless endangerment.

This is only interesting because it demonstrates that the agent prococateur tactic outlined in Enemies Foreign and Domestic is not entirely implausible.

New York has a licensing scheme for carrying a handgun.  Among the usual we'll-issue-one-if-we-want-to clauses, it has a residency requirement -- that is, you have to live in New York, or work there full-time, in order to get a permit.  The plaintiff in this case, Bach, does neither; he works in the intelligence community and occasionally visits his family in New York, an event which apparantly entails dark alleys and lots of potential kidnappings by foriegn agents.  He wants the residency requirement struck down as violating the 2nd Amendment and the "Privileges and Immunities" clause. 

The 2nd Amendment argument is fairly strong, except that the judicial system has so far mostly refused to admit it.  The judge dismisses it with the quote "The 2nd Amendment is not a source of individual rights."  So much for the 2nd Circuit on that issue.

The Privileges and Immunities clause is somewhat trickier.  If that clause is read the way the plaintiff requests, it would be impossible for a state to differentiate in its laws between residents of the state and non-residents of the state.  A resident of Maine could get a driver's license in Florida and a concealed-carry permit in Idaho.  That's possible for some things today (marriage licenses, some concealed-carry licenses) but not for others.  Ruling that no differentiation is possible would most likely have significant repercussions, making any judge reluctant to do so.  However, the text on its face seems to require something very close to that.

It seems to me that applying the "full faith and credit" clause to compel recognition of his Virginia carry license might ahve been a better argument.  All 50 states recognize each other's drivers licenses; why shouldn't all 50 states recognize the right to carry a concealed firearm for self-defense? 

Of course, whatever the merits of the argument, the 2nd Circuit disagrees, upholding the lower court's dismissal of the case.  No word yet on whether an appeal is planned.  I'd like to see one.

The full decision is available here.

UPDATE: Commenters from the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association say [via Alphecca] that the plaintiff in this case might not be well-suited for the appeals process.  They describe him as someone who presented himself to the media and the court as a "badass" who needed to be "ready to kill at a moment's notice" because "street thugs and terrorists are hiding in every bush".  Since I haven't had any contact with the individual in question, of course, I have no idea of their description is accurate -- but if so, they're probably right, and this might not be the best case for an appeal.

UPDATE: Bach has posted a response in the comment thread at Alphecca.  Quoting:

You know Mr. Rieper, I don't mind if someone disagrees with the case or even if they dislike me personally. But I would suggest that you read all the pleadings in their entirety before citing the media as a credible source of information, particularly regarding this case and on issues involving the rights of gun owners in general. I have no doubt that the media reported what it wanted to report and cherry-picked comments from the Complaint to convey whatever impressions they wanted to make. As I said previously, I have not sought out the media and spoke briefly with only one reporter from Syracuse where the case was initially decided. Nor do I have control over what the media reports or how they choose to report it. What is beyond me, is why you continue to perpetuate media reporting that is evidently negative on such an important issue.

The facts in this case are NOT an issue unlike the majority of other gun cases that make it to court. The fact I served in the military as a Navy SEAL and have years of experience handling many different types of small arms in a case about firearm restrictions is not playing up anything. The fact that a terrorist group claimed thousands of lives in NY, VA, & PA in a single day and continue to pose a significant threat at home and abroad is to me, relevant, particularly when, as here NY continues to disarm law-abidng citizens of sister States at its border. And just so there is no misunderstanding, the facts of this case focus neither on terrorism nor my military background. Rather, the facts focus on violent crime and the rights of individuals to have an effective means of protecting themselves and family members from violent criminal acts when traveling interstate. The fact is, NY has some of the toughest gun control laws in the Nation and not suprisingly, some of the hightest violent crime rates. When I filed the lawsuit in 2002, NY accounted for well over 100,000 violent crimes per year according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Statistics. So rather than continue to trash the plaintiff and brag about your organization turning down a case that argues for the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, why not provide some constructive support.

Perhaps when I return from my tour of duty in Iraq we can get together and discuss the case in person rather than in this forum. Your organization certainly could do a lot of good by helping in any future proceedings such as filing a well written amicus brief.

Dave Bach
Bach v. Pataki

Just as with Jeff, I've got to keep a neutral perspective here, since I don't have a first-hand perspective into any of this.  But it's very interesting to watch the back-and-forth. 

New Yorkers, contact your legislators immediately and instruct them to oppose A4471, legislation that sounds truly horrid:

Legislation is expected to be heard today (Tuesday May 17) in the New York State Assembly Codes Committee that will ban the .50 caliber rifle.  The legislation (A4471), does allow for compensation by the state to current owners, but only at a "fair market value" (translated: whatever they feel like paying you and not to exceed $8,500).  In addition, the law gives you only 30 days to dispose of your rifle and you must turn your rifle into the state police PERSONALLY.

Remember, .50 caliber ammunition has been around since the Revolutionary War.  Our founding fathers would have fought this ban with everything they had.  I know that because when King George tried it, that's exactly what they did!  Can we do any less?

Two weeks from now, when competitors line up in Buffalo for the Empire State Games, New York shooters will also be toeing up to the line. The shooting sports have been part of the games every year since they began a quarter century ago, but this year just being allowed in is a victory, of sorts, for gun-carrying athletes. On Valentine's Day, as I reported last month, officials abruptly announced plans to save $200,000 by scrapping shooting and three other sports, ostensibly for budget reasons and because these sports didn't draw enough competitors or spectators.

For at least the third time just six months, Black or Hispanic men are facing criminal charges in New York City for using a firearm to defend their home or place of business. These good men are all victims of gun control.

The enemy could be anywhere. So the authorities say they must look everywhere. Since the September 11 terrorist attacks a vast network of government agencies, from federal to local, has amassed extraordinary powers to inspect what ordinary Americans say, do, and believe in the course of their daily lives.

As the nation's largest law enforcement agencyýnearly twice the size of the Federal Bureau of Investigationýthe New York City Police Department could be the biggest Big Brother of all. Yet it faces quite a stumbling block. A long-standing federal order, imposed after a landmark lawsuit revealed rampant surveillance abuses of political activists, prevents the NYPD from spying on whomever it wants.

Now the NYPD is fighting to gut the order and get its old powers back.

Ever wonder what your children might be learning when they hit the books in the New York City public schools?

In New York, the site of many toy-gun fatalities, City Council members have introduced a bill to ban the sale of all toy guns - a ban that has not yet passed anywhere in the US. If the bill is approved, officials think it could help blaze the trail for the state, as well as cities nationwide.

New York City's current law, signed in 1998, prohibits the sale of toy guns unless they are brightly colored or transparent or have a prominent trademark. But some City Council members think the law is ineffective: Kids can make toy guns look real simply by spray-painting a gun black, or hiding the toy trademark with tape. And even though Toys "R" Us and KB Toys removed realistic-looking weapons from shelves in 1994, some manufacturers still sell replica guns elsewhere.

IN all likelihood, most New Yorkers would find it hard not to sympathize with Ronald Dixon. No, that's too soft. In all likelihood, most New Yorkers would find it close to impossible not to sympathize with Mr. Dixon, or question his right to do what he did.

A California college student was released after being arrested at Syracuse Hancock International Airport when inspectors found a stun gun in her luggage.

Apparantly it's illegal to possess a stun gun in New York. Did you know that? I know I didn't -- and neither did this woman, it seems. She asked airport officials if she could carry the stun gun in her luggage (not carry-on) and they told her she could -- so she did. But when she arrived in New York she was arrested and charged with "criminal possession of a weapon." But she's not a criminal, and how does mere possession due to ignorance harm anyone?

Got a car? Sell it. Trade it in. Buy a boat. Buy a plane. Buy a hot air balloon. Train to become a long-distance swimmer. Make friends with someone who has a bomb shelter. Move to the backwoods of Arkansas. Or the bayous of Louisiana. Because with the national terror alert system level now at "burnt orange? -- somewhere between red, the highest level of threat, and orange, the second-highest -- it might interest you to know that in the event of an attack on the metro area, the contingency plan, in most scenarios, is to ban all of us from the major roads and highways on Long Island.

Should gun manufacuters be held accountable for a person who's a victim of gun violence? Community leaders and the government aren't seeing eye to eye on the subject. Gun control groups and Bronx Community leaders say their against legislation that would protect gun manufacturers from being sued.

It's remarkable that they published this story at all, given the prevalent anti-gun bias in the media in general and the presumably even stronger bias in New York.

A Navy veteran who shot an intruder in his toddler's bedroom decided against pleading guilty to a gun charge yesterday. Ronald Dixon rejected a deal that would have spared him from having to do jail time because he does not want a criminal record, his new attorney said.

It's good that he's going to fight the charge. Good luck.

Even if Judge Weinstein rules for plaintiff in the remand trial, as expected, plaintiff may lose because of federal legislation moving in the House.

City Councilman James Sanders Jr. (D-Laurelton) has sponsored a bill that would require people buying ammunition to show a gun permit, an idea spawned by the founder of a Queens-based anti-violence group. Sanders was scheduled to introduce the bill, which would also raise the minimum age to purchase a rifle or shotgun to 21, Wednesday alongside Mothers Against Guns President Liz Bishop Goldsmith, who lobbied the councilman to make her idea a law.