Why a San Francisco jury might have found reasonable doubt in the widely publicized prosecution of an illegal immigrant over a young woman’s death. [Sarah Rumpf, RedState]
Posts Tagged ‘guns’
Does PLCAA shield gunmakers from liability other businesses would face?
Prof. Stephen Sugarman takes up, and finds generally wanting, the claim that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act protects the gun business from liability that other industries would face under like circumstances. “Many critics of PLCCA argue that gun makers and sellers should be liable just like those in the auto, pharmaceutical drug, and tobacco industries. Yet, it is very rare for defendants in those industries to be successfully sued in tort for the sort of conduct that gun control advocates would like to hold the gun industry liable.” [UC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper/SSRN]
“Gun policy is hard”
Once again it’s time to get angry at how unreasonable the other guy is being on the gun issue.
And it is time to just fix the problem, right?
I wish it were that simple, but, like most questions in public policy, it is not. Gun policy is hard, and getting it right—or even starting to get it right—requires calling out the bad arguments from both sides and understanding inevitable trade-offs and unavoidable facts.
[Trevor Burrus, Forbes, a year old but of continuing relevance] More: “I used to think gun control was the answer; my research told me otherwise” [Leah Libresco, Washington Post/Syracuse.com]
Repealing the Federal Switchblade Act of 1958
According to Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), this West Side Story-era federal law has become a trap for working Americans in many occupations who use knives caught up under its provisions, and repealing it will leave them freer and safer [American Knife and Tool Institute/Officer.com; related on gravity-knife laws]
“The ABA has often fancied itself a bulwark of due process…”
Given the historic role it has frequently played as advocate of due process, it’s curious that the American Bar Association now is fine with ex parte gun confiscation orders [Trevor Burrus and Matthew Larosiere, Forbes]
Publishing a gun design online = arms export?
Design for using 3-D printing technology to produce a gun is posted on the internet. Feds order it taken down as a violation of arms export laws, because anything posted online can be read overseas and a data file counts as an “export.” Is there a constitutional problem with that? Trevor Burrus and Meggan DeWitt on a new Cato amicus brief. Update January 2018: Supreme Court denies writ of certiorari.
Supreme Court and constitutional law roundup
- Litigating the boundaries of religious liberty: Tunku Varadarajan interview/profile with Becket Fund’s Montse Alvarado [WSJ] And mark your calendar for Sept. 28, Cato’s inaugural day-long conference “The Future of the First Amendment” at which I’ll be on a panel on religious liberty;
- What Hamilton wrote: archive find casts further doubt on theory President isn’t “officer” subject to Emoluments Clause [Brianne Gorod, Take Care] Broad definition of emoluments in suit against Trump might trip up its own lead plaintiff, Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal [Michael Stern] “There is nothing wrong with Justice Gorsuch speaking at the luncheon despite its venue.” [Steve Lubet on Trump-Hotel-as-speech-venue flap]
- Duties of celebration: Cato amicus urges SCOTUS to consolidate Arlene’s Florist with Masterpiece Cakeshop case [Ilya Shapiro and David McDonald]
- Maryland gun ban unconstitutionally broad, argue Randy Barnett and Dave Kopel in Cato amicus [Shapiro, Kopel, and Matthew Larosiere] Restore rights to a rehabilitated felon? Sure, says Maryland, but not gun rights. Constitutional check [Shapiro]
- Federalist Society’s annual Supreme Court roundup speech for last term, by Miguel Estrada, is now online. Unfinished business: 10 certiorari petitions from last term SCOTUS justices should have granted [Mark Chenoweth, WLF] And don’t forget to mark your calendar for Cato’s Constitution Day Sept. 18;
- By 2019, constitutional law discussions at America’s top law schools were being conducted entirely in emoji [@tribelaw on Twitter on “First or Second Amendment, pick one” question of whether persons assembling for political protest have right to bear arms at the same time]
Good riddance, Operation Choke Point
The Department of Justice has confirmed that it is putting an official end to Operation Choke Point, the under-the-radar initiative by Obama financial regulators to discourage banks from doing business with certain disfavored businesses such as payday lenders and gun dealers. I’ve written a piece for the Washington Examiner on it, excerpt:
The fate of Choke Point should serve as a warning that it’s dangerous to allow those in power to flag legal-but-suspect domestic businesses for shaming and commercial ostracism — especially if the process is covert, and especially if the result is to cut off the outcasts from access to the basics of economic life.
At the same time, it’s significant that the answer to Choke Point was *not* to pass some new law compelling banks to do business with payday lenders, fireworks stands, or X-rated studios.
Part of a free society is that we shouldn’t force commercial relationships on private actors. Businesses — and that includes providers of credit and payments services — should legally be free to follow their conscience.
And Eric Boehm quotes me at Reason:
“It should serve as a warning that the government doesn’t get to flag for banks—or businesses generally—which legal-but-suspect domestic customers it would like them to ostracize,” Olson told Reason on Friday. “Those in power must refrain from signaling that they’d be pleased if certain categories of otherwise legal customer get cut off from their access to economic life.”
Earlier at our tag. More coverage: Politico, Vending Times (vending machine sales companies hail decision).
Talked into suing gun dealer, left stranded
“Brady Campaign urges couple to file a frivolous lawsuit. Couple goes bankrupt. Brady Campaign nowhere to be found.” [@jaycaruso summarizing his National Review story, earlier on Brady Campaign]
Constitutional law roundup
- In name of suicide prevention, Oregon plans to use emergency one-sided hearsay proceedings to take away gun rights [Christian Britschgi, Reason]
- Past Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) readings of Emoluments Clause fall between extreme positions of CREW on the one hand and Trump White House on the other [Jane Chong/Lawfare, earlier]
- “Yes, Justice Thomas, the doctrine of regulatory takings is originalist” [James Burling, PLF] On the Court’s decision in Murr v. Wisconsin (earlier), see also Robert Thomas at his Inverse Condemnation blog here, here, and here;
- Notwithstanding SCOTUS decision in Pavan v. Brown just four days before, Texas Supreme Court intends to take its time spelling out to litigants the implications of Obergefell for municipal employee benefits [Josh Blackman (plus more), Dale Carpenter on Pidgeon v. Turner] Why the Supreme Court is not going to snatch back Obergefell at this point [David Lat]
- Tariff-like barrier: California commercial fishing license fees are stacked against out-of-staters [Ilya Shapiro and David McDonald, Cato]
- H.L. Mencken writes a constitution, 1937 [Sam Bray, Volokh]