Not the Only Ones

Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit Filed to Strike Down Gun Control Exemptions for Retired Law Enforcement Officers [More]

Good. Although that can't be making NRA too happy.

Curious, though. It relies heavily on Silveira and is backed by Calguns.  They were the ones who kicked me off their forum for rebutting a prominent Calguns member attacking me, among other reasons, for supporting Silveira. That would be the same Silveira the establishment did its best to kill (and incidentally, NRO then reneged on a promised rebuttal).

It's also curious that a primary reason Silveira failed was due to an earlier case that the"establishment" gun groups backed with this result:

After conducting a full analysis of the amendment, its history, and its purpose, we reaffirm our conclusion in Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir.1996), that it is this collective rights model which provides the best interpretation of the Second Amendment. 

Silveira also resulted in an outstanding dissent.

Banned Forever!

[More]

As a rule, I stay away from forums. While there are some notable exceptions, I've found too many of them are simply places where the closed-minded congregate to insulate themselves from anything that challenges their preconceptions. Too much nastiness and not enough thought go into many of the posts, and it's clear that many comments are the results of hip shots based on other posted comments rather than actually considering what the original source of the discussion had to say about a subject. That's why you'll find--in some of the forums discussing the Bush administration approving the "collective rights" theory of the Second Amendment as justification for its new space flight security rules--the major premise is ignored in favor of people ridiculing guns on spacecraft--a debate topic for another day, to be sure, but only incidental to the topic I was writing about.

But then you get acts of actual sabotage, where the poster knows damned well what he's doing, and whether out of fear or hatred, lashes out with lies, ad hominem attacks, and proclamations that are simply and demonstrably wrong.

Meet NRA grassrooter Mike Haas, someone who has been vocal at attempting to derail just about every Second Amendment activism effort I can recall being part of over the past 10 years. I'm not sure if it's pathological with this guy or if he simply views any new ideas that don't come from his camp as threats, but the guy's a Fairfax worshipper of the first order. Fortunately, he's also incompetent and dishonest, so his attacks are easy to defeat simply by presenting the documented truth.

Because I've been banned for "insulting" him from CalGuns forums, (and from accessing the website itself--at least from my home computer) and because CalGuns.Net will not allow a man who's been attacked to defend himself, which is pretty telling about their mindset, I'm presenting my rebuttal to Haas' baseless attack here:

Response to Mike Haas

I note Haas has not addressed what I actually wrote, just went straight into character assassination. That's one of the oldest deflection tactics in the book. I see some of you have opted to take his side just because, which is your choice and your right. If anyone here is interested in looking a little deeper, read on.

I've never joined a forum before, because they are typically not the most effective means of using limited time if my goal is to reach a wider audience--and the only reason I'm posting here is to defend myself against an unprovoked attack. I probably won't be back, but in any case will not even be able to check for a few days because I'm heading to the mountains with no computer access. We'll see if open minds are receptive to a counter to Mr. Haas' peculiar venom. And for the record, he never contacted me first--something I've done and documented numerous times when I've had differences with NRA.

Stick to the topic I actually wrote about if you're going to "debunk" what I said, Mike. Yes or no, did the FAA cite the "collective rights" theory of the 2nd Amendment as their legal justification for imposing their rules, and yes or no, did the Sr Counsel for the FAA say that this was approved by the executive office of the president? You don't have to be a legal scholar or have some sort of special qualifications to "interpret" that, Mike. Answer those basic questions.

Where to start? How about me being "one of the most anti-NRA entities one can encounter." Note he hasn't given you an actual example of one of these "attacks" because, then you might have to look at the uncomfortable fact of whether or not what I said was true--for instance giving anti-CCW sheriff candidate Bill Brown in Santa Barbara an A rating. The fact is, I AM the NRA--life member,former members council officer, long-time volunteer and financial contributor--you can read my position on that here:
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2005/08/im-nra.html

Then there are the fabricated LIES, yes, I said "lies"-- about our petition effort. It's still online on KABA. Go ahead, Mike--out of all the entries at http://www.keepandbeararms.com/petition/, please point everyone to the fundraising appeal--that's what you told them we were trying to do. Good Lord--coming from an NRA management apologist with their interminable fundraisers, that sounds kind of like a pimp calling me a slut. The point of our petition was also well explained, and we never pretended it was one of those "official" ones Mike wants to belittle us for not being--gee, kind of like those appeals and cards and things NRA management sends its members to contact our representatives--along with a plea for more money. We were pretty proud of our effort, actually, Mike--got some national press, got mentioned twice by Wm F Buckley, writtten up several times on WorldNetDaily, and got responses from every state in the union--over 30,0000 of them, which, while a number you might laugh at in your superiority, ain't bad considering IT WAS ENTIRELY SELF-FUNDED and with all work done by basically 3 people. I personally spent a couple hundred out of pocket. I do recall one or two people enclosed 5 bucks or so. And, oh, keeping names and addresses is now "illegal"? So NRA management will destroy their lists? Hey Mike, you missed again--we kept no names and addresses--we sent them all to Mr. Ashcroft. How can I prove that? Not directly, but indirectly--find ONE Ashcroft petition signatory who says we then used the petitions to send him junk mail or spam. You can't Mike, because you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Oh, and a "PS" I almost forgot--you know who else supported the petition--publicly--wrote me a nice letter, wrote about it in his column, and even signed up supporters at his class? The late Col. Jeff Cooper. So I'm pretty comfortable with the company I kept on that effort. Mike.

You want to talk Silveira now? How it had such a losing streak? As opposed to the winning streak on 2A Mike and his friends have achieved? Take a look at why the 9th circuit said it didn't have standing--gee--couldn't have anything to do with PRECEDENT established in prior losing efforts that those friends engineered, could it? We had a unique effort and we were right--and we had a lawyer doing the scholarly work who had actually been part of a winning Supreme Court effort, and who, unfortunately, died shortly before cert was denied. We can't rehash the whole thing in this forum--if any of you have the time, the whole thing is still over at KABA and you can see for yourself what we said and did, and again, I'm proud of that effort and the people I worked with as an unpaid volunteer, as was Angel, who Mike hates, which may explain some of this, and Brian Puckett. But here's the one thing I want those reading this to walk away with: Silveira established no new precedent, as Mike seems to indicate with the "damage" he accuses us of almost doing--and for someone who questions MY legal acumen and talent, "the defendant" who "was hardly the ideal gun owner" in the Silveira case was the state of California, Mike, via AG Lockyer and Grey Davis, and Sean Silveira et al were the PLAINTIFFS. So you again don't know what the hell you're talking about. But let's take a look at the character of these "defendants" Mr. Haas would have you doubt just based on his say-so--you know, the "less than ideal" gun owners. It's copied directly from the complaint.
33. Plaintiff JACK SAFFORD is a resident of Corning, California, husband and father, and owns substantial acreage/farm land. He owns his own insurance agency and is a model citizen. He is a graduate of California State University, Chico.
34. Plaintiff SEAN SILVEIRA is a resident of Marin County, California, husband and father of two, and owns real property in Marin. He is a civil engineer, model citizen, and a graduate of California State University, Chico.
35. Plaintiff PATRICK OVERSTREET is a resident of Marin County, California, husband, and owns real property in Marin. He is employed by the San Francisco Police Department as a S.W.A.T. officer, and a graduate of California State University, San Diego.
36. Plaintiff DAVID K. MEHL is a resident of Sacramento, California, husband, and owns real property in Sacramento. He is a chemical engineer, graduate of the University of California, Davis, and a model citizen.
37. Plaintiff SGT. STEVEN FOCHT is a resident of Placer County, husband and father, and owns real property in Placer County. He was a Marine Corp sniper who performed military functions in Desert Storm, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Kenya, Thailand, in addition to Mogadishu,Somalia. He was honorably discharged, and currently a Sergeant in the California Army National Guard. He is a model citizen.
38. Plaintiff SGT. DAVID BLALOCK is a resident of Sacramento County and owns real property in Sacramento County. He was assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division who is a Purple Heart recipient from combat injuries (AK 47 round through his arm) occurring in the Noriega police operation (invasion of Panama) and currently a Sergeant in the California Army National Guard. He is a model citizen.
39. Plaintiff MARCUS DAVIS is a resident of Sacramento, California, husband and expecting father, and real property owner. He is mortgage broker, graduate of the University of California, Davis, and a model citizen.
40. Plaintiff VANCE BOYCE is a resident of Colusa, California, husband and father, and real property owner. He is a of California State University, Fresno.
41. Plaintiff KEN DEWALD is a resident of Paradise, California, husband and father, and real property owner. He was honorably discharged from the Air Force, and is currently employed as a California Correctional Officer and a model citizen.

Go ahead, Mike, you ignorant fraud. Tell your admirers on this board how these "defendants" are "far from ideal gun owners".

Now we can get into my recommendations of "civil disobedience"--you know there's no tradition of that in forging freedom for this country--no, I'm sure Thoreau and others would have applauded NRA grassroots having DOJ reps come before their membership to tell them the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right, and then demand they fill out registration forms for property they already lawfully purchased and owned. Yep, guilty as charged, and proud of it--because we've seen through the Bill Doss example how NRA's lawyer provided the escort service to surrender that registered weapon to the state. I don't know what the hell good Mike thinks 2A is if it means we're just going to obey every order the govt issues to us--including surrendering our firearms to the state on demand. If that's your idea of skillful activism, Mike, go for it. Me, I'll defy and resist and disobey, and live with the stinging pain of having incurred your bitchy and impotent scorn.

I guess we could now get into a debate on what kind of talent I AM close to possessing, but you know what, Mike? I really don't care what you think about me. I play damned well with others--that is, with men and women whom I respect. And I don't consider us on the same "side" Mike--You publicly lie about people and their efforts, and you don't know what you're talking about. I want as far from that side as I can get.

I'll be back in a few days. Feel free to use it to your best advantage. Someone who lies and doesn't know what he's talking about doesn't worry me too much.

Just see if you can nail him down to address the specific points I made in the article he used as the catalyst for his stupid, ineffectual attack.

David Codrea

One final word to those who are members and supporters of CalGuns Forums: Do you like being fed demonstrably false information, and then having what you're allowed to see and comment on manipulated and censored? Do you think it's fair to attack a person, his efforts and his reputation, and then prohibit that attacked party from presenting the truth? Then you've found the right place. Enjoy your association with such transparent and malicious propagandists.

Me, I'm not afraid of entering the lion's den, alone and against all they can muster, but surface appearances indicate they're afraid of me--even on their own turf. And unlike those cowardly gatekeepers who manipulate what they will allow you to consider in a debate, comments here at WarOnGuns are open--I think with the exception of some spam, a few pornographic comments and some ill-advised statements that might be construed as threats, I've never interfered with anyone saying anything--including comments highly critical of me.

I'm even going to be gone for a few days without computer access, so now's the time to get your cheap shots in, boys, and I use that term deliberately. You have something to say? Go for it.

That includes you , Mike.

Reflections on Silveira

Part of the recent attack on me has focused on criticism of the Silveira case. While the commenters in this instance aren't high on my list of favorite people, it's undeniable that some very credible and respectable attorneys argued the case was a bad one to make. I'll get into that another time, as the inclination strikes, but would just offer these observations:

If we wait for the "perfect" case and the "perfect" court, we will never resolve this "legally." That happy convergence will simply never happen. In the mean time, we are utterly powerless to prevent a really wrong case from being made that will settle the matter (again, "legally") without our input and with overwhelming public sentiment agreeing with the decision--for instance, if a child molester files the suit.

And this is assuming that the initiative is taken by the "side" claiming 2A applies to We the People--if the government prosecution of, say Wayne Fincher argues he has no individual right, or if a lawsuit filed by Michael Bloomberg or the Brady Campaign predicates itself on establishing a national "collective rights" precedent, what will the Silveria critics do then?

The recent tempest over FAA asserting a "collective rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment should demonstrate that it's a legal argument the federal government is willing to make and/or uphold--as in California, where decisions at both the state Supreme Court and federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have created exactly such precedent.

If there is one constant we can demonstrate about those who would render us disarmed, it's that they will not wait around for us to suit up for the game on our terms. They will bring the fight to us at the times and places of their choosing, again and again and again.

If there's one thing we can demonstrate about battles is, every war won by we Americans required going on a totally committed offense. It's, incidentally, why we haven't won one for over 60 years.

My position? If the government at all levels intends to deny us our birthright, I want to know about it, and the sooner the better. Perhaps it will galvanize us, perhaps not, but at least we'll know the score, with no further illusions that cynical faux leaders can use to manipulate us with. Perhaps, if the change in temperature is stark enough, the frog will jump.

If not, we're screwed anyway, but in a manner that humiliates us, robs us of our dignity as men, and conditions our children for enslavement by the example we set.

Questions and Answers II

In Part One, questions and concerns from Dave Licht about the Second Amendment were posted, and many of you responded with comments of your own. Here are some of my initial observations.

He loaded a lot on the plate, so I'm going to spread this out over a couple posts this week, and do everything in bite-sized chunks.

I have gone to Law school and I have worked in a top law firm (as an intern) and everywhere I turn the people with the experience in the trenches that I respect tell me that the second amendment is NEVER the argument.

I continually talk to experienced, smart, creative attorneys that I respect who tell me there is no second amendment. Yesterday I had a long talk with the partner I work for and he told me to "forget the second amendment, it was poorly written, it's been completely de-balled. U.S. gun laws are entirely statute driven and it has been increasingly thus since "U.S. v Miller" in 1938. He said with the exception of "U.S. v Lopez" there are no meaningful constitutional arguments for inalienable gun rights. The courts have routinely upheld restrictions on possession and ownership particularly local ordinances.

I should throw in that these are seriously constitution believing, gun owning, gun in the top desk drawer attorneys with years of experience, not the bRADY BUNCH.

Unless things radically change, I'd say this assessment of the current state of things is inarguable.

I've been saying for some time that those in power will not allow that balance to significantly change unless forced to. However, it is also my opinion that there will be a "legal resolution" from the Supreme Court on the Second Amendment, and sooner rather than later, and that individual rights will be acknowledged. Perhaps Parker will be that case.

Did I just contradict myself? I don't think so, because I don't think such a ruling will ultimately prove useful at repealing the most offensive of existing gun laws. I believe most of those will be upheld as "reasonable restrictions" where there is a "compelling state interest."

Why do I think SCOTUS will hear and decide on a case? I believe the tension between the Fifth (Emerson) and Ninth (Hickman and Silveira) Circuits can't be allowed to perpetually stand. It's in the interests of the federal government to have one interpretation of the Constitution--"one Ring to rule them all..."

So far, the "High Court" has managed to duck the issue. Some in the "pro-gun camp" say this is a good thing, because the court was not properly stacked to rule for an individual right. This was a significant reason they opposed--and tried to derail--Silveira, citing how it could create "bad precedent." Many of these critics conveniently forgot to mention how the precedent they brought about in Hickman solidified the state of California's legal position that there is no individual right.

That SCOTUS refused to hear the case was not really a surprise. Their dilemma: They couldn't rule that 2A is an unalienable right, applicable to the states as well as the national government, that shall not be infringed, because that would erode the monopoly of power--and no "authority" gives that up unless forced to. And they dared not rule that there is no individual right, because that would provoke widespread defiance and disobedience that could well get out of hand.

The time--and the cases--were not "right" to serve the purposes and maintain the balance.

That's where John Ashcroft showed the way, albeit in an often overlooked footnote...

More later.

Katherine Letellier Responds...

...to my inquiry:

Mr. Codrea,

I appreciate your comments. I do object, however, to your contention that I am challenging "the leading authorities on the subject" when I state that both sides of the gun debate issue can cite colonial history and arguments made by the Founders to support their case.

First, though I do not question Mr. Halbrook's scholarly credentials, there is no monolithic set of "leading authorities" who are all in agreement regarding the Founders' intents. A quick Google search of the gun rights issue will bring up myriad federal court cases (Silveira v. Lockyer, for example) in which federal judges explicitly declare their belief that the intent of the Founders was to preserve a collective rather than independent right to bear arms. While I am not endorsing or refuting either the federal courts' or Mr. Halbrook's view of the original intent of the 2nd Amendment, I would posit that federal judges should be included among "leading authorities on the subject" and that "leading authorities" thus appear to disagree on the issue. There is apparently some gray where you would like to see only black or white.

Second, you can examine the 1789 "House Journal" and "Senate Journal" (the official records of the original debate) or the "Annals of Congress" (compiled decades later) to assess the intentions of the Founders. Contention over the meaning of "milita" abounds, a point critical to collective rights advocates. You can additionally examine English common law, often referenced in the colonies prior to the Revolution, and find a debasement of the individual right to bear arms starting as far back as 1328. These are but examples of the historical evidence that gun control advocates might use to substantiate their case and what I intended when I wrote that "both sides can cite colonial history and quote from the Founders."

But my point in writing the original letter was not to position myself as a leading scholar of matters constitutional nor to advance a particular point of view, but rather to express disappointment that such a complex and interesting issue was treated in so one-sided a manner. I was hoping that leading scholars on BOTH sides of the argument would write thoughtful pieces, and that I and other readers would benefit from their contrasting viewpoints.

I would very much appreciate your removing my e-mail address from your web site as it is intended for school business, and I do not want to be inundated with Second Amendment-related e-mails. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Regards,
Katherine Letellier

My reply:

Ms. Letellier,

Perhaps I did not make myself clear.

I did not ask you about Silveira. I did you [sic--my bad--it was late] ask you about English law in 1328.

I asked you to substantiate your claim that "Each side can cite Colonial history and quote from the Founding Fathers."

Please provide these quotes from the Founding Fathers you say exist that state there is no individual right to keep and bear arms.

That's what this is all about, and that's all I'm looking for.

Can you do this? Yes or no?

Everything else is nonresponsive to my specific question.

In re your email address, it is a public record on the internet, available to anyone doing a Google search on your name. However, in the interest of obtaining a specific answer to my inquiry, I will do as you request.

------------------------

Let's see what she says.

How can We RSVP if We Didn't Get an Invite?

From AR15.com, toward the bottom of page 64:


That's funny.

One of the expert witnesses in the case says he's sent your liaison information and has been ignored.

And I see not being invited didn't stop y'all from inserting yourself in the Parker (now Heller) case. You not only just "stepped in on your own," hell, you tried to derail it. Just like your attorney tried to do with Silveira, a case you were invited, that is practically begged, to support.

Seeing how the outcome of this case affects every owner of a semiautomatic firearm in the country, one must ask what you have done to show the least bit of curiosity AND LEADERSHIP. Did anyone call Olofson's attorneys, ask 'em what's going on, see if there's anything you could do to help? Did they reject your advances?

God, this forked tongue misdirection out of Fairfax drives me nuts.

DRUDGE: DC Gun Ban Struck Down by Federal Appeals Court

SILBERMAN, Senior Circuit Judge: Appellants contest the district court’s dismissal of their complaint alleging that the District of Columbia’s gun control laws violate their Second Amendment rights. The court held that 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”) does not bestow any rights on individuals except, perhaps, when an individual serves in an organized militia such as today’s National Guard. We reverse.

Particularly gratifying to see because of some of the attacks some of us have been subjected to:

We note that the Ninth Circuit has recently dealt with a Second Amendment claim by first extensively analyzing that provision, determining that it does not provide an individual right, and then, and only then, concluding that the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge a California statute restricting the possession, use, and transfer of assault weapons. See Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052, 1066-67 & n.18 (9th Cir. 2003). We think such an approach is doctrinally quite unsound.

MORE:

• Washington, D.C. Circuit Court Strikes Down 30-Year Old D.C. Gun Ban
• Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down D.C. Handgun Ban (Update1)

We're the Only Ones Bordering on Being Above the Law Enough

An off-duty U.S. Border Patrol agent was jailed for more than a day after Mexican border officials found 650 rounds of ammunition in his car, authorities said Saturday...

Lloyd Easterling, a Border Patrol spokesman, said the agent was assigned to the agency's Yuma sector, but declined to release his name. He said officials worked with Mexican authorities to secure his release...

A similar incident happened in April 2005, when Mexican officials detained two Border Patrol agents at the Mexicali Port of Entry after inspectors found boxes contained more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition. They were freed on bail after more than a week in a Mexican jail.

Funny thing about the fedgov. If you're one of "The Only Ones," they work to free and clear you, and even shield your identity from the "Authorized Journalists" (who, Lord knows, are incapable of finding out the name of an employee of the government they're supposed to be watchdogging without it being announced.) But if you're a mere private citizen like Thomas Bean, who also negligently had some ammo in his vehicle, that government will not only imprison you upon your release from Mexico, but will then legally strip you of your "gun rights"--forever--and use every resource at its disposal to ensure they cannot be restored.

This, of course, happened in "pro-gun John Ashcroft's" DoJ. And it was unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court, including the "conservatives" everyone is relying on--when the "right case" eventually comes along (not something the gun lobby establishment considers "icky" like Silveira, or God forbid, Fincher)...

Just so we're clear: if convicted of a "felony" in a foreign land, the national government intends to see you disarmed here--even if your activities are perfectly legal under US law. This logically includes Mr. Ashcroft's fellow Pentecostals if caught bringing unauthorized Bibles into North Korea, or even presumably a capital morals conviction under Sharia "law."

That is, unless you're one of them.

NRA's Deceptive Headline

The other day, I posted about an Orlando Sentinel headline that was an outright lie--a fabrication made up by the editors that was totally unsupported by the facts. Unfortunately, we've come to expect this from the anti-armed citizen coalition, and even rely on it as a way to demonstrate truth is on our side.

That's why we need to be better than them. We need to be relentless in presenting fact to support our opinions, and we need to be above-board and honest doing it. That has always been our strength, and our enemies' weakness.

So what the hell is this?

San Francisco Superior Court Rejects Gun Ban; 2nd Amendment Upheld

No it was not either. As I started to say in a discussion over at Nicki's:

The case was not challenged on 2A grounds--it was challenged on preemption grounds.

That's because a 2A challenge wouldn't have worked--both the CA Supreme Court AND the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals do not recognize 2A as an individual right.

The only hope of overturning this in the courts is for SCOTUS to do so. But to date, the high court has refused to tackle this issue.

So in short, it was a matter of expedience.

Mind you, I'm not endorsing this tactic--I think while we're dancing around congratulating ourselves on a victory we are ignoring hidden costs and implications at our peril--but in a nutshell, a 2A challenge will never prevail in California until a higher decision forces it.

Even though I would prefer an outright Second Amendment-based resolution, I'd expect the high court to duck facing one if it came before them, as they did in Silveira. They clearly don't want to resolve this, as evidenced by their willful refusal to resolve opposing precedents between the 5th and 9th Circuits. So had a challenge been made on 2A grounds, the SF handgun ban would have been upheld in the lower courts, and SCOTUS would have probably refused to involve themselves.

Still, I mentioned costs and implications, and those are simple, really: we can debate over preferring state preemption vs a patchwork quilt of local gun bans, and on the surface, the former seems the lesser of two evils, less burdensome and more pragmatic. Of course, when you believe that rights are unalienable, and that the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land," all such edicts are repugnant and insulting to free sovereign individuals.

Just don't forget that relying on preemption on matters of Constitutional rights bolsters its perceived supremacy and legitimacy. So if the state decides No Guns Allowed, well then, no guns will be allowed. The ruling judge practically said as much.

But back to the reason for this post: None of this gives NRA a pass for deceiving gun owners and its membership with such carefully crafted falsehoods. We deserve better than this from them.

What we should ask ourselves when such deception is exposed is where else are they misleading us? And if they do so here, how can we know when to believe them?

The Gun at the Reagan Library

After posting the latest Million Moon Update, I took the family on a trip about an hour north of us to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, CA. I've always had a fondness for the man, despite some profound differences. He was, after all, a remarkable individual. He was also a master at making you like the persona he presented, and I'm not immune. Plus, I really wanted to tour the Air Force One exhibit (Wow!), and also spend a moment of reflective silence at the president's resting place. It is a facility worthy of a special trip. Sitting on a mountaintop, the view alone is worth the drive--spectacular doesn't cover it. In addition to the exhibits already mentioned, you can tour a replica of the Oval Office as it appeared during the Reagan years, see a piece of the Berlin Wall, and wander through the various halls displaying periods and achievments of the president's life. Which brings me to why I'm sharing this. I stopped at a glass case containing several historic American firearms. There was one of unique appearance that caught my eye, something I hadn't seen before, with this description on its placard:

Springfield Armory in Massachusetts produced over 4,000 M1855 pistol-carbines, a dual-purpose firearm. With the stock removed, troops could fire from horseback. When dismounted, the horse soldier could attach the stock to fight on foot with greater accuracy. Despite such versatility, the firearm was not popular.

I've done some searching around and haven't found a good photo to share, but here's why it caught my attention: Short-barreled rifles and shotguns are strictly controlled, and the rationale in the infamous Miller decision centered around the defendant not being able to demonstrate a military application for a short-barreled shotgun. My friend and colleague Brian Puckett wrote a quite authoritative analysis on this as a supplement for the Silveira case. I'm not a lawyer or a firearms expert, nor do I play one on TV. I don't know if the existence of the M1855 makes a damned bit of difference as far as legal technicalities go, and I suspect it probably doesn't. But I just thought it was interesting, and figured someone might be able to offer some further insights. If you have something to add, feel free to leave a comment.

Full Disclosure

TriggerFinger raises concerns about a Bitch Girls post concerning Of Arms & the Law, specifically that a $10,000 funding grant by NRA was not disclosed.

It was. To millions, via NRA's June membership magazines.


From AMERICAN RIFLEMAN, June 2005, pg. 77

David Hardy does not warrant being scrutinized unless it is to confirm the wonderful work he has done and honor him for it. As a member of the Silveira support team from the outset, I know that Roy Lucas held him in the highest regard--and Roy was a guy who would let you know if he had issues with you.

Lest these comments be misunderstood, Matthew, no criticism of you or your decision to post on this is implied. I appreciate your blog and consult it every day.