Friday, December 29, 2006
In The Mail...
My copy of David Hardy's Second Amendment Documentary arrived.
When I've got a few hours to watch it, I'll let you know what I think.
My expectation is that there aren't going to be any surprises for those who are well informed on RKBA issues, but I think it's incredibly important to have all that stuff in one place, in one coherent package that is consumable by Joe & Jane Normal.
It's my hope that this item fills that niche.
.
Permalink
Posted By: geekWithA.45  
Toy Review...
As you might imagine, Santa tends to bring me shooting toys every year.
I had higher expectations for this year's stocking stuffer, the tagball gun.
For such an incredibly well made toy (aluminum and high impact plastic), it gives disappointing performance.
While the velcro tagballs do in fact achieve higher-than-toy, break-stuff-and-poke-your-eye-out velocities, I find that it hardly lives up to its description as "precise".
The POI is only vaguely related to the sights, in that it shoots 8 inches low @ 15 feet, and randomly left or right. It has a cone of fire that is like 10 inches at 15 feet, which means that hitting soda cans @ 30 would be more like a ballistic accident than an act of skill. Add to that the many misfeeds and failures to chamber, and my assessment is that you're better off with a cheapo spring driven airsoft.
Tis a shame. It's a good concept that just didn't live up to it's potential.
.
.
Permalink
Posted By: geekWithA.45
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Unsettled Judicial Issue Creates Legal Jeopardy in PA...
Having school age kids, I've been keeping half an eye on the issue of CCW on school grounds.
The PA Statutes address the issue thus:
Quote: {emphasis mine}
-------------------
Section 912, enacted in 1980, reads as follows:
"Possession of weapon on school property.
(a) Definition.—Notwithstanding the definition of "weapon" in section 907 (relating to possessing instruments of crime), "weapon" for purposes of this section shall include but not be limited to any knife, cutting instrument, cutting tool, nun-chuck stick, firearm, shotgun, rifle and any other tool, instrument or implement capable of inflicting serious bodily injury.
(b) Offense defined.—A person commits a misdemeanor of the first degree if he possesses a weapon in the buildings of, on the grounds of or in any conveyance providing transportation to or from any elementary or secondary publicly-funded educational institution, any elementary or secondary private school licensed by the Department of Education or any elementary or secondary parochial school.
(c) Defense.—It shall be a defense that the weapon is possessed and used in conjunction with a lawful supervised school activity or course or is possessed for other lawful purpose."
-------------------
(It's come to my attention that schools often quote only sections (a) and (b), conveniently omitting section (c).)
Given that PA's state constitution section 21 provides that
"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.",
I'd always considered that personal self defense was firmly established as an "other lawful purpose."
I've heard conflicting anecdotal information on the status of this conclusion. On the one hand, I'd heard that this position had not been tested in court, but on the other hand, I'd also gotten word of several cases where the schools called the police, who declined to arrest, citing 912(c).
The issue reared it's ugly head again last October, when an LTCF bearer was arrested for violation of 912, after refusing to leave when confronted by school authorities.
a short, not especially informative article that confuses the issue by randomly tossing in an unrelated incidenct.
Open Carry forum member Statkowski shares with us the response he got from his state representative on that topic:
Quote:
-----------------------
Thank you for contacting me in regard to your interest in Commonwealth laws regarding firearms. I always appreciate the opportunity to respond to these questions and appreciate your continued interest in this matter.
In your letter, you had inquired about the meaning of the phrase "possessed for other lawful purpose" found in 18 Pa.C.S. § 912(c) relating to possession of weapon on school property. Specifically, you wondered if this language recognized a Pennsylvania license to carry a firearm as a "lawful purpose."
Section 912, enacted in 1980, reads as follows:
"Possession of weapon on school property.
(a) Definition.—Notwithstanding the definition of "weapon" in section 907 (relating to possessing instruments of crime), "weapon" for purposes of this section shall include but not be limited to any knife, cutting instrument, cutting tool, nun-chuck stick, firearm, shotgun, rifle and any other tool, instrument or implement capable of inflicting serious bodily injury.
(b) Offense defined.—A person commits a misdemeanor of the first degree if he possesses a weapon in the buildings of, on the grounds of or in any conveyance providing transportation to or from any elementary or secondary publicly-funded educational institution, any elementary or secondary private school licensed by the Department of Education or any elementary or secondary parochial school.
(c) Defense.—It shall be a defense that the weapon is possessed and used in conjunction with a lawful supervised school activity or course or is possessed for other lawful purpose."
According to House legal staff, at least two statewide courts have had the opportunity to address the issue of possession of firearms on school property by an individual who was licensed pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 6109. Neither has issued an absolute rule.
Legal staff further indicated that in Commonwealth v. Heidler, the Pennsylvania Superior Court specifically refused to answer the question of whether an individual with a license to carry a firearm possessed such firearm for a lawful purpose on school grounds. 741 A.2d 213, 217, fn 8 (1999), app. denied 758 A.2d 660 (Pa. 2000). In Bolden v. Chartiers Valley School District, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania noted that, "(w)e need not address Bolden's argument that because his gun was registered his conduct falls within the exception to Section 912 which states that no crime is committed if Bolden possessed the gun with a lawful purpose. We note, however, that Bolden's argument ignores that the exception to Section 912 only allows possession of a firearm...for '[an] other lawful purpose' (meaning, for example, than an investigator, or a security guard, or other person who as part of his or her duties carries a firearm will not be charged with a crime...)." 869 A.2d 1 134. 1139. fn 7 (2005).
The decision in Bolden, in particular the examples provided by the court in footnote 7, should give pause to an individual licensed under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6109. Although there is no iron-clad rule, in neither case did the court consider a license as a defense to a violation of the Crimes Code language concerning possession of weapons on school property. Until a definitive court ruling on this question, an individual would be in jeopardy of prosecution. It is worth noting that the penalty for a conviction under 18 Pa.C.S § 912 would be a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000.
It is hoped that this information is useful. If I can be of further assistance on this or other legislative matters, please do not hesitate to contact my office.
-----------------------
I have a couple of thoughts on the matter.
The first is that the Olney arrest seems to be following the pattern of "criminal trespass".
In general, the way it works in PA is that we have no specific provision for prohibiting lawful CCW in various places via signage in places such as state parks and other private properites of public accommodation. If a place has some sort of prohibition against arms, and you are discovered to be carrying, they can ask you to leave, and if you refuse, you can be arrested for criminal trespass.
The second thought is that based on the text of the above response, (and not having read the cases) it seems to me that both Bolden and Hiedler failed to make the correct assertion in their defense. It seems to me that they asserted that the fact that they had LTCFs was sufficient to make it lawful, without citing the purpose of their carry. In other words, posession of an LTCF is a status, not a purpose.
It seems to me that you have to establish that you are BOTH carrying in a lawful manner, AND for the well established lawful purpose of personal self defensne, which is other than those specifically provided for, supervised activities or courses.
Now, I have no idea what the other facts and legal issues in those cases were, but it seems that there's a bit of judicial obtuseness in play here. Given that the cases turned on other legal issues, it seems fair to suspect that there was other stuff going on.
The third comment I have is that Smith's response indicates that a 3rd degree misdemeanor has a $10k/5 year prison pricetag attached to it, which certainly exceeds the normal definition of "misdemeanor".
Finally, the main point of this post is to clarify my position in this matter, which has varied a little bit over the years.
My position, as a normal, prudent man who is not a lawyer is that the purpose of personal self defense is well established as lawful purpose for the bearing of arms by the PA state Constitution, and that this purpose, coupled with the carriage of arms in a lawful manner should be sufficient to meet the requirements of 912(c).
That being said, it cannot be denied that a jeopardy of prosecution exists in the absence of a definitive court ruling on the matter.
.
Permalink
Posted By: geekWithA.45
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Merry Christmas!
It seems like the right time to wish all my Readers a Merry Christmas.
May all the blessings of your favorite Diety wash over you in abundance and joy.
Permalink
Posted By: geekWithA.45
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Fielding Questions...
Via Google, an unknown user asks "What is a misdemeanor gun charge?"
The generally accepted definition of misdemeanor is a relatively minor crime, the maximum statutory punishment for which is less than one year in jail. The opposite of misdemeanor is "felony", for which one can be sentenced to more than a year in jail.
A gun charge is a violation of any of the 20,000 gun laws that are on the books in the US.
Which of those charges is considered a misdemeanor varies wildly from one jurisdiction to the next.
What isn't even a crime in one jurisdiction can be a 10 year felony in another, or perhaps a misdemeanor in yet another jurisdiction.
For example, NJ would lock me up for at least 30 years for the contents of my gun safe, which contains nothing exotic or unusual. The jurisdiction I live in however treats RKBA more or less as a right, and therefore has no legal beef at all with me or my arms.
When used in the press, it generally indicates some sort of status crime, meaning posession of a firearm without such paperwork as that jurisdiction may require, or perhaps under circumstances that the jurisdiction deems verbotten.
Sorry, that's the best answer you can get.
.
Permalink
Posted By: geekWithA.45
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Mossberg's "Ready To Bury" Cruiser...
I had to laugh when I saw the picture of Mossberg's "JIC"* shotgun package in the Rifleman.
My first impression was, "How convenient! It comes prepackaged in a PVC pipe, ready to bury!"
Go see for yourself. ;)
Incidentally, cruiser style shotguns aren't a totally bad idea. They're compact & powerful, but pistol grip shotguns take practice to use effectively, they're a technique unto themselves. Personally, I prefer a fold out stock on them, but then again, I'm not much of a shotgun guy, and so my natural, and incorrect tendency is to treat them as big, sloppy rifles.
*Just In Case...incidentally, one of my code conventions is to comment belt & suspender code for handling unlikely data circumstances as //JIC.
Permalink
Posted By: geekWithA.45
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Congratulations, Ohio!
The Ohio legislature over rode Taft's veto of Ohio's gun control reform law.
It puts state pre-emption of local gun control laws into place, erasing 80 local gun control laws, such as "assault weapon" bans in Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, and Dayton.
Dave Kopel calls it " the most significant roll-back of gun control that has ever been enacted by a state." (more here)
Quote from the Law:
-----------------
"The individual right to keep and bear arms, being a fundamental individual right that predates the United States Constitution and Ohio Constitution, and being a constitutionally protected right in every part of Ohio..."
-----------------
.
Permalink
Posted By: geekWithA.45
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Just a Quick Thought.
Prompted by this article:
Quote:
---------------
Silberman and Judge Thomas B. Griffith seemed to wrestle, however, with the meaning of the amendment's language about militias. If a well-regulated militia is no longer needed, they asked, is the right to bear arms still necessary?
"That's quite a task for any court to decide that a right is no longer necessary," Alan Gura, an attorney for the plaintiffs, replied. "If we decide that it's no longer necessary, can we erase any part of the Constitution?"
---------------
The Forces of Organized Gun Bigotry like to make much of their contention that we gunnies allegedly like to sweep the 2nd Amendments prefatory language under the rug.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"
In their view, we like to do this in order to escape what they believe is the (erroneous) consequence of the language, that RKBA is a "collective" right.
They're wrong, as usual.
This phrase not only explains and justifies why RKBA is protected, but it also makes an assertion, that without RKBA, a state is niether free nor secure.
So, Sarah Brady, stuff that up your pipe and smoke it.
.
Permalink
Posted By: geekWithA.45
Monday, December 04, 2006
Anybody support the War on Drugs?by EgregiousCharles
This might be controversial, and not everybody notices the signature I put at the top or the 'posted by' at the bottom, so I'd like to emphasise that I'm Egregious Charles not the Geek With A .45 posting here. (like the last two posts.)
I know all kinds of reasons that drugs are bad, I don't need any further information on that. I've personally know someone who died of an overdose. What I'd like to know is, does anybody think the War on Drugs is good for the country? Anybody think that it has an actual effect in reducing usage of these recreational poisons that's worth the huge cost in lives that the illegal drug industry takes? Also, of course, the collateral killings in mistakes in militarized-police raids etc.
If you think it's worth it, why do you think so?
Permalink
Posted By: EgregiousCharles
|
|
