“We hold that R.C. 9.68 [the preemption statute] is a general law that displaces municipal firearm ordinances and does not unconstitutionally infringe on municipal home rule authority.” City of Cleveland v. State. The court reversed the Ohio Court of Appeals’ decision striking down the law on state home rule and separation of powers grounds.
The Ohio Constitution provides that, “Municipalities shall have authority to exercise all powers of local self-government and to adopt and enforce within their limits such local police, sanitary, and other similar regulations, as are not in conflict with general laws.” The Ohio Supreme Court has held that, to be general, a statute must (among other things) “be part of a statewide and comprehensive legislative enactment.” The court of appeals held that the state preemption statute “is not comprehensive, because it leaves a ‘great deal of firearm activity unregulated.’” But the Ohio Supreme Court concluded — quite sensibly, in my view — that “A comprehensive enactment need not regulate every aspect of disputed conduct, nor must it regulate that conduct in a particularly invasive fashion.” “There is no requirement that a statute must be devoid of exceptions to remain statewide and comprehensive in effect” (quoting another case). Likewise, “the fact that some states have more regulations than Ohio does not warrant a conclusion that Ohio’s statutory scheme for regulating firearms is not comprehensive.”
The court of appeals also held that the law “violates the separation of powers [under the state constitution] by usurping judicial discretion in the award of attorney’s fees and costs,” and “invites unwarranted litigation and attempts to coerce municipalities into repealing or refusing to enforce longstanding local firearm regulations using the significant burden of financial litigation penalties.” As I blogged when the court of appeals decision was handed down, that can’t be right: It is a proper part of the lawmaker’s business, it seems to me, to decide the remedies available in lawsuits, and whether the remedies should be discretionary or mandatory, even when the consequence is “unwarranted litigation” and the pressure to give in to plaintiffs. The Ohio Supreme Court held that there was no separation of powers violation.
Two of the seven Justices dissented, but I find it hard to understand their argument. They reasoned, quoting an earlier case, that “in order for … a conflict to arise, the state statute must positively permit what the ordinance prohibits, or vice versa, regardless of the extent of state regulation concerning the same object,” and concluded that there was no conflict warranting preemption because “the Cleveland ordinances do not conflict with R.C. 9.68, because they does not permit something that the statute forbids or vice versa.” But how could this be so?
Rev. Code 9.68 provides that, “Except as specifically provided by the United States Constitution, Ohio Constitution, state law, or federal law, a person, without further license, permission, restriction, delay, or process, may own, possess, purchase, sell, transfer, transport, store, or keep any firearm, part of a firearm, its components, and its ammunition.” Cleveland ordinances barred or required further process or restriction for some possession and transfer of guns, even beyond what state or federal law provided — according to the Court of Appeals opinion, city ordinances covered “possession of firearms by minors,” “possessing deadly weapons on public property,” “possessing certain weapons at or about public places,” “prohibiting children access to firearms,” “prohibiting possession and sale of assault weapons,” and “registration of handguns.” The city apparently “[did] not argue” before the Ohio Supreme Court “that its local firearm ordinances do not conflict with R.C. 9.68.” Sounds like the city ordinances “[forbid] something that the statute [permits].” What am I missing here?
Owen H. says:
Although overall I agree, this seems to say that since the state law does not forbid it, counties and municipalities cannot ban firearms from places like city courtrooms or other municipal or county properties. That can’t be right.
December 29, 2010, 7:07 pmKazinski says:
Unless there is another state law that bans guns in courtrooms, the law does say:
So it doesn’t repeal any existing state law on firearms, just local law. And sure enough Ohio has a state wide prohibition on carrying in these locations:
But it certainly makes sense that firearms laws are statewide, it is pretty tough to have keep track of local laws, especially in a CCW state. I can see somebody in their normal commute crossing 5 or 6 local jurisdictions daily. If they are packing that would just be a nightmare to try to figure out just what laws they need to conform with.
December 29, 2010, 7:34 pmKirk Parker says:
Owen,
Why not? Washington state does exactly that, and it works just fine. Firearms are indeed banned in court facilities, but that’s because state law itself specifically says so. It’s perfectly allowable in any other municipal or county office, just like it is in the other state offices.
December 29, 2010, 7:51 pmOwen H. says:
Actually, now that the other s=restrictions the state makes are clear, it seems reasonable. I would still think that there may be “public property” that the state law does not cover that the municipality still ought to be able to control, but I will have to think on it.
December 29, 2010, 8:05 pmKatahdin says:
The second paragraph below is worth mentioning. The history is that there were a couple of instances of ex-husbands killing their wives in the vicinity of the courthouse. That resulted in a proposal to ban weapons in court buildings. Wiser heads pointed out that that meant that a stalker who wished to encounter a disarmed wife could merely wait for her in the parking lot on a day of e.g. a divorce hearing, and so they added the section requiring that weapons be stored for CPL holders.
RCW 9.41.300:
“(b) Those areas in any building which are used in connection with court proceedings, including courtrooms, jury rooms, judge’s chambers, offices and areas used to conduct court business, waiting areas, and corridors adjacent to areas used in connection with court proceedings. The restricted areas do not include common areas of ingress and egress to the building that is used in connection with court proceedings, when it is possible to protect court areas without restricting ingress and egress to the building. The restricted areas shall be the minimum necessary to fulfill the objective of this subsection (1)(b).
(usual definition of weapon snipped)
In addition, the local legislative authority shall provide either a stationary locked box sufficient in size for pistols and key to a weapon owner for weapon storage, or shall designate an official to receive weapons for safekeeping, during the owner’s visit to restricted areas of the building. The locked box or designated official shall be located within the same building used in connection with court proceedings.”
December 29, 2010, 8:19 pmricky says:
I dare anyone to point out the real, obvious reason why Cleveland has such an enormous crime problem. Hint: all cities with this condition have major crime problems.
December 29, 2010, 9:02 pmOwen H. says:
I dare you to do so. Go ahead.
December 29, 2010, 9:18 pmloki13 says:
Is it the years of futility from their major league teams?
Do I get a prize?
December 29, 2010, 9:26 pmPJens says:
Prof Volokh asks: “What am I missing here?”
I say that the local Cleveland politicians are trying to pass the wool (law) over the eyes of the city residents in hopes they can get away with it.
A troubling trend in political activity is to see laws passed in hopes no one notices until after the fact.
December 29, 2010, 10:24 pm~FR says:
HINT: all cities with this condition have major crime problems.
A large number of criminals dwelling in the greater metropolitan area?
December 29, 2010, 10:26 pmKazinski says:
I think the Chief Justice was reaching for Orin’s definition of a “courageous judicial decision”:
December 29, 2010, 11:14 pmvisitor says:
Gene,
What you are missing is that Ohio has never applied true preemption analysis with respect to cities. Actually, it has developed an anti-preemption rule, interpreting a constitutional “home-rule” amendment. The court has heretofore rejected field preemption, and required a unique form of conflict preemption in all cases.
This move towards traditional preemption analysis, albeit small, is a positive development.
December 29, 2010, 11:31 pmrpt says:
Is it the same thing that made Phoenix the “kidnapping capital of the world?”
December 29, 2010, 11:32 pmRandy Newman says:
I believe ricky is aware that there’s a demonstrated, positive correlation between the flammability of the local river and the crime rate.
December 29, 2010, 11:42 pmOrenWithAnE says:
So I’m not familiar with Ohio home-rule, but isn’t there a quick fix for the OH legislature to indicate in no uncertain terms “The following sections(s) constitute a general law regarding firearms and are intended to create a comprehensive and uniform State-wide system of regulation”?
That is, this seems like an easy enough thing to accomplish without the courts having to divine whether or not the legislature intended such preemption. If they did, they can say so and the general presumption against preemption, except when it is explicit, ought to stand.
December 30, 2010, 12:31 amwhit says:
yup. we also allow it on college campuses and on other campuses (high school, grammar etc.) as long as the parent stays in the car. That way they can come on to campus to pick up a kid and not run afoul of the lawl.
December 30, 2010, 1:14 amkerr says:
There is a shortage of lying Republicans in Cleveland, so that can’t be it.
December 30, 2010, 1:17 amwhit says:
i hate to sound like a broken record but i think this is generally true.
iow, a significant portion of the stuff that the court wrestles over and pisses people off with is necessary because legislators write really stupid, vague, poorly defined laws.
i think legislators could learn a lot from programmers. I started programming when I was about 12, and i learned quickly that a computer needs its variables clearly defined, exceptions considered, etc. etc. or it just freezes up or does unpredictable stuff.
laws should be written, like they were written for computers. define your terms WELL (variables and constants), and anticipate what could go awry.
December 30, 2010, 1:18 amOrenWithAnE says:
Indeed. The Court should rule, and should send a short (2 paragraph, executive summary, let’s not burden the legislators with too many words) explaining “We’ve construed section XXX (gun laws) as (not|) preempting local (gun) laws. If you want to (preempt|allow) local gun laws, pass a bill saying so with the following suggested language.”
Amen, up to a point. The number of states that humans can get themselves in dwarfs even the most complicated computer. The law cannot be formally correct (that is, provably give the right answer in every input) because you cannot even enumerate the inputs.
There needs to be play in the joints, and the drafters have to be exactly clear which elements are meant to have human judgment (and how much), and which are meant to be applied rigidly. No one can reduce “malice aforethought” any more than it’s already been done. What’s clear from the caselaw is exactly where that judgment comes in.
First, that’s not enough. Second, what’s more important than the internal definitions is the external ones — how does this law interact with the other laws. Does it replace the previous law or merely amend it? Does it preempt local laws or not? In case of conflict between this law and another law, which should prevail? If a provision of this law is unconstitutional, is it severable from the rest of the law?
My experience with computers and people is that we focus too much on the internals of a thing and not on its connections to the rest of the world.
December 30, 2010, 1:41 amKazinski says:
From the NY times story on the decision:
Glad they’re putting their most knowledgeable reporter on the story.
December 30, 2010, 3:57 amwhit says:
i agree with your general points. however, i just see WAY too many examples of legislators simply failing to define words for a statute or such that would take little time, but make things a whole lot clearer.
For example, look at WA state’s two party consent law. it says it applies to “private conversations”. but it nowhere defines what the heck that means. we had a case where they charged somebody for recording a cop w/o telling him (thrown out) and where a cop was charged for recording a motorist w/o telling him (thrown out) where if they spent a LITTLE time explaining what they MEANT by “private” conversation, that never would have happened.
we had the exact same problem with a poorly written voyeurism law that didn’t prohibit people surreptitiously videotaping up women’s skirt because of failure to define a word “private”
we had another problem with a case of a teacher schtupping a student get thrown out because of an ambiguity (and yes, it should have been thrown out) on the age of a “child” etc. as defined under that law.
i can look through the RCW right now and find examples of laws that are unconstitutional (but just haven’t been challenged yet) like our kneejerk cyberstalking law.
i could go on. it just amazes me how poorly they write these laws. i’ve seen friggin’ software manuals written with more preciseness.
i think we can agree that ambiguous laws are BAD. they encourage malicious and/or arbitrary prosecution, and they leave citizens with uncertainty about what is and isn’t legal
it’s one thing when we are talking search and seizure issues, etc. it’s another thing entirely when we are talking easily defined bright line stuff that we leave in the hands of penumbras and emanations because legislators write piss poor laws.
December 30, 2010, 4:02 amFormer Army MP says:
No. If you passed exactly that wording the same Justices would hold that 1) the legislature’s intent was not enough to create an actual comprehensive and uniform State-wide system of regulation; and 2) the addition of the new clause violated regular law making and therefore the entire law was void.
You are dealing with liberals who hate guns, they will tell any lie, make up any thin excuse to get their way. Rules of law will not restrain them.
December 30, 2010, 7:04 amMike says:
What depresses me most about these issues is the coverage in the local papers. Despite the fact that these changes to gun regulations were passed with an *overwhelming* majority of both houses (the concealed carry legislation was the first veto override in many years in Ohio) they still present these as victories for a fringe group of well-funded gun lobbyists. Ten minutes of research would turn up that the anti-gun side has spent ten times that of the NRA or Buckeye Firearms groups in recent elections. In fact, the actual “lobbying” end of Buckeye Firearms are a couple volunteer lawyers who had to be reading their normal briefs in between legislative sessions to keep from falling behind on their real work!
The Columbus Dispatch’s article for this case used this “stock photo” for their coverage http://www.dispatch.com/live/export-content/sites/dispatch/local_news/stories/2010/12/29/29desertgunx200.jpg
After editorializing that there would be “blood in the streets” if Cleveland’s bans were struct down.
Seriously, guys?
I don’t believe in the Fox News cries of a general liberal bias to media, but the 2nd amendment coverage really helps their case for it.
December 30, 2010, 8:02 amBarry D says:
Over the years, the people I’ve known in law enforcement and the legal profession have all said that Family Court is a much scarier place than regular old Superior Court where they try armed robbers and the like. This scenario is not far-fetched.
Come to think of it, the only person I have known who was murdered, was killed by her ex-husband the day the divorce was final.
December 30, 2010, 8:17 amInstapundit » Blog Archive » EUGENE VOLOKH ON yesterday’s Ohio gun-rights opinion…. says:
[...] EUGENE VOLOKH ON yesterday’s Ohio gun-rights opinion. [...]
December 30, 2010, 8:32 amNick Reynolds says:
Here’s your ‘general law’ regarding firearms from the Ohio State Constitution. Libs like to ignore it.
“The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.”
December 30, 2010, 8:49 amTim says:
The dissent doesn’t seem to say why the Cleveland ordinance conflicts with the statute, he just asserts “I conclude that the Cleveland ordinances do not conflict with R.C. 9.68″ (p. 14 of opinion).
However, I think the dissent’s problem is with what doctrine to use in “Home Rule” analyses. Ohio courts have been using a “conflict analysis” which looks at purported conflicts on a case by case basis. Other justices on the Ohio Supreme Court, most notably Justice Maureen O’Connor, want to apply a preemption analysis similar to the federal preemption doctrine (see her concurring opinion in City of Cincinnati v. Baskin, 112 Ohio St.3d 279, 289-90 which outlines her approach).
Preemption would allow “field preemption” while the conflict analysis would not allow field preemption; rather the court would look at each case to see whether the ordinance expressly conflicts with the statute. Under preemption, the General Assembly could preclude municipalities from enacting any ordinances that pertain to certain fields (like fire arm regulation).
This case didn’t deal apply any conflict (or preemption) analysis, but it seems to be a step toward adopting a preemption analysis, and that may be the dissent’s issue with this opinion.
December 30, 2010, 9:03 amcbunix23 says:
I don’t have the exact wording in front of me, but the Ohio state constitution says cities may not make legal something state law explicitly prohibits, and they may not prohibit something the state law explicitly allows.
Cleveland is saying “State law does not explicitly make legal the ownership of semiautomatic firearms therefore we should be allowed to prohibit ownership of semiautomatic firearms.”
The majority said that’s baloney the dissent said “la la la la we don’t like guns la la la la”
December 30, 2010, 9:04 amPersonFromPorlock says:
Possibly, that the two Justices have no shame?
December 30, 2010, 9:07 amParatrooperJJ says:
As a side note, all Title II weapons are legal in Ohio including short barrel shotguns.
December 30, 2010, 9:18 amyankev says:
Some years ago and well before the preemption statute, the state supreme court (or perhaps the court of appeals, I forget) upheld the conviction of a driver who lived in one Cleveland suburb and drove through another suburb with an unloaded handgun in his trunk. State law permitted him to do so, but the arresting suburb had an ordinance banning possession of a handgun unless the possessor had a letter from the chief of police of the city where he lived, attesting to his good character. Of course, the defendant had no reason to know of the ordinance , and the chief of police in his home suburb had no provision for issuing such a letter. No matter, said the court. The preemption law was enacted precisely to prevent such travesties.
December 30, 2010, 9:33 amyankev says:
And that one, a lame duck, is a notorious politician who resigned as probate judge part way thhrough his first term in order to run for Chief Justice (on a highly partisan basis for what had been a relatively non-partisan court), then was appointed Chief Justice by the governor a few months before the election when the incumbent Chief Justice died in office. For some reason the appointee lost the election. They are now talking about appointing him to fill a vacancy on the Columbus muni court.
December 30, 2010, 9:39 amyankev says:
The same Dispatch tha laments the loss of home rule power over firearms regulation applauded a statewide ban on indoor smoking. What of home rule power to allow smoking in private clubs, bars, restaurants or for that matter offices? (And no, I don’t smoke, and I do find cigarette smoke annoying.) So, to the Dispatch, state preemption is bad, unless it bans bad things.
December 30, 2010, 9:42 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
Not according to the appellate court, which said that you have to look to the substance of the law and not the stated intent of the legislature to preempt. (I’m paraphrasing.). It’s not the legislature’s desire to preempt that matters, but whether they have actually enacted a comprehensive regulation.
December 30, 2010, 9:44 amPaul the tax serf. says:
PersonFromPorlock
You just are not educated. English is a living language and you are stuck in some elderly, antique mindset. /sarcasm
December 30, 2010, 9:47 amGunPundit » Blog Archive » More on Cleveland Restrictions says:
[...] Eugene Volokh writes: Two of the seven Justices dissented, but I find it hard to understand their argument. They reasoned, quoting an earlier case, that “in order for … a conflict to arise, the state statute must positively permit what the ordinance prohibits, or vice versa, regardless of the extent of state regulation concerning the same object,” and concluded that there was no conflict warranting preemption because “the Cleveland ordinances do not conflict with R.C. 9.68, because they does not permit something that the statute forbids or vice versa.” But how could this be so? [...]
December 30, 2010, 9:51 amCurious Passerby says:
“…they does not..” Did a justice write this? Affirmative action justice maybe?
December 30, 2010, 10:10 amchuckatpdo says:
No matter how well a program is written, debugging is an essential part of the process because not all conditions can be anticipated.
The judicial arena is that debugging process.
December 30, 2010, 10:41 amMarc says:
Here is the statute in its entirety. It is simple, general, and fairly clear. I find it hard to believe that anyone could not see it as a general law:
“9.68 Right to bear arms – challenge to law.
(A) 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, the general assembly finds the need to provide uniform laws throughout the state regulating the ownership, possession, purchase, other acquisition, transport, storage, carrying, sale, or other transfer of firearms, their components, and their ammunition. Except as specifically provided by the United States Constitution, Ohio Constitution, state law, or federal law, a person, without further license, permission, restriction, delay, or process, may own, possess, purchase, sell, transfer, transport, store, or keep any firearm, part of a firearm, its components, and its ammunition.
(B) In addition to any other relief provided, the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney fees to any person, group, or entity that prevails in a challenge to an ordinance, rule, or regulation as being in conflict with this section.
(C) As used in this section:
(1) The possession, transporting, or carrying of firearms, their components, or their ammunition include, but are not limited to, the possession, transporting, or carrying, openly or concealed on a person’s person or concealed ready at hand, of firearms, their components, or their ammunition.
(2) “Firearm” has the same meaning as in section 2923.11 of the Revised Code.
(D) This section does not apply to either of the following:
(1) A zoning ordinance that regulates or prohibits the commercial sale of firearms, firearm components, or ammunition for firearms in areas zoned for residential or agricultural uses;
(2) A zoning ordinance that specifies the hours of operation or the geographic areas where the commercial sale of firearms, firearm components, or ammunition for firearms may occur, provided that the zoning ordinance is consistent with zoning ordinances for other retail establishments in the same geographic area and does not result in a de facto prohibition of the commercial sale of firearms, firearm components, or ammunition for firearms in areas zoned for commercial, retail, or industrial uses.
Effective Date: 03-14-2007″
December 30, 2010, 10:42 amJoseph Slater says:
This whole thread has been made worthwhile by the various responses to “Ricky.”
December 30, 2010, 10:50 amOrenWithAnE says:
You realize they ruled in favor of preemption right? Who exactly are you ranting at?
OK, that answers my previous question. The next obvious one: who in their right mind would enact such a bizarre and subjective preemption scheme?
December 30, 2010, 11:13 amKirk Parker says:
Katahdin,
One minor clarification: the requirement for court facilities to provide secure storage for handguns is not limited to CPL holders–anyone open carrying is equally entitled to such storage.
December 30, 2010, 11:19 amCity of Cleveland v. State « Internet Scofflaw says:
[...] Eugene Volokh takes a look at this week’s Ohio Supreme Court case striking down Cleveland’s anti-gun laws. It seems that Ohio’s appeals court was making a novel argument. The Ohio constitution provides that municipalities have the right to make their own legislation, provided it does not conflict with “general laws”, which have been interpreted to mean “part of a statewide and comprehensive legislative enactment.” [...]
December 30, 2010, 12:06 pmLarryA says:
According to the 2009 Brady state rankings* Ohio is #22. (11 points out of 100.) So while there are 21 states with more regulation, there are also 28 states that have less. Couldn’t that indicate Ohio’s scheme is a bit too comprehensive? ;-)
* Of course given Ohio’s recent changes, the 2010 scores may change.
Texas passed its concealed carry law in 1995, effective 1-1-96.
The 1997 Legislature (Our Leg meets only 140 days in odd-numbered years) passed a revision correcting a conflict in the original law. It also established the Penal Code 30.06 “Trespass by a CHL” section which required a particular (large, obnoxious) sign to keep CHLs off your property. A few cities and counties began posting “30.06 signs” on parks, auditoriums, municipal offices, transit systems, etc.
In 2003 the Legislature revised Section 30.06 to prohibit its use by state agencies and subordinate governments.
In 2010 the Legislature allowed the installation of security checks at the entrances to the State Capital. There’s a special line where CHLs show their licenses and bypass, with their concealed handguns, the metal detectors and x-ray machines. As a result a whole bunch of reporters and lobbyists got concealed carry licenses.
Government buildings are supposed to belong to the people.
December 30, 2010, 12:08 pmcbunix23 says:
Since NFA weapons were brought up I will throw this on the pile. Ohio cities could never ban any NFA weapons because state law has long explicitly allowed ownership of NFA weapons registered with BATFE. If state law did not explicitly allow ownership of NFA weapons Cleveland would have banned them a long time ago.
December 30, 2010, 12:15 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
What a charming idea!
December 30, 2010, 12:52 pmwhit says:
i don’t disagree with that. it doesn’t therefore follow that legislators don’t do an awful job of debugging before they release their code
December 30, 2010, 1:39 pmCarl from Chicago says:
I noted that, too. Indeed. That was their most knowledgeable reporter.
December 30, 2010, 3:33 pmCarl from Chicago says:
Agreed. Keeping track of myriad local laws regulating carry is absurd. But I submit that keeping track of STATE law is egregious too, given that most of us wish to reserve a few neurons for things other than inane legal matters.
That statewide preemption removes an unreasonably confusing patchwork of local regulations … is the same convincing argument as that national preemption would remove an unreasonably confusing patchwork of state regulations.
December 30, 2010, 3:44 pmKirk Parker says:
Carl,
Much as I sympathize with your terrible plight (assuming ChiTown–or anywhere in IL–is still your current residence), you have to recognize that the states are pretty much free to refine their own balance between local autonomy vs statewide standards, whereas the same thing at the federal level has, well, federalism issues. Let’s see how Macdonald and its (expected) progeny shake out before we get too excited about nationwide reciprocity or (even better) nationwide constitutional carry. Even though the latter is my preferred policy outcome, I’m not eager to get there via means that further erode the few tattered vestiges of federalism we have left.
December 30, 2010, 4:19 pmBob from Ohio says:
A sawed off shotgun is probably closer to an “assault weapon” than most “scary looking” rifles that are commonly thought by liberals to be “assault weapons”.
Short barrell shot guns were called “trench guns” in the First World War and were very useful weapons.
I doubt though if the NYT reporter had any idea.
December 30, 2010, 5:31 pmPat of Ohio says:
Regardless of the substance of the decision – this is just another Ohio Supreme Court ruling eroding home rule. Started with the politically motivated decision in Rocky River IV, through the residency ruling two years ago and now this. I fully support gun rights, but there is a bigger issue affecting and, ultimately, making any concept of home rule – or individuals determining the the laws under which they live – a pale shadow.
December 30, 2010, 5:42 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Because heaven forfend the legislature should stop their next big project to fix the old ones. Oh dearie me no, it’s beneath them to actually pay attention to the results and tweak the law until it conforms with their actual honest-to-god intent.
In the programming world, we have a rule that you don’t write any new code until you’ve fixed all the (reported and confirmed by the QA monkeys) bugs in the existing code. There are a dozen reasons: you remember recent code better, it takes less time, it’s more predictable. But such simple quality control is beyond the abilities of most legislatures.
The last Senate failed to pass a reciprocity (as a regulation of commerce) for all States that have any CCW at all by a vote of 58-3X (this is back when there were 60 Democrats in the Senate too, and you can guess which say Ted Kennedy voted).
It’s nearly a given that the next Congress will pass a similar or stronger reciprocity bill, even if McDonald never bears fruit.
December 30, 2010, 6:25 pmOrenWithAnE says:
But far less likely to over-penetrate when used in a self-defense scenario.
December 30, 2010, 6:33 pmKatahdin says:
I wonder why SWAT teams went to 5.56 rifles instead of shotguns?
(Rhetorical question – I asked if overpenetration wasn’t a concern, and they said that they felt overpenetration was less of a concern with 5.56 than shotguns or 9mm subguns. n.b. that a 00 buckshot weighs 54 grains, almost the same as common 5.56 projectiles. Moreover, once a 5.56 round tumbles it is going to have a lower sectional density.)
December 30, 2010, 6:44 pmKirk Parker says:
OrEn,
Like I said, I have mixed feelings about that.
December 30, 2010, 6:53 pmD. Laden says:
Google “North Hollywood shootout.”
Video here:
December 30, 2010, 7:20 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zm1PEY8F4xE
OrenWithAnE says:
They use 9mm HK MP5s here in Boston, at least the ones I saw milling about the Capitol building. So much for Buy American…
[ Do we make a good tactical 9mm SMG or do you have to go the Europeans actually? I can't think of any US ones off the top of my head, and of course the HK is iconic in that segment. ]
December 30, 2010, 8:01 pmOrenWithAnE says:
On second thought, they use MP5s but they could be one of the oddball larger caliber versions that apparently (so says Wikipedia) that HK made recently.
December 30, 2010, 8:05 pmCMH says:
Two of the seven Justices dissented, but I find it hard to understand their argument.
My entirely speculative theory: Justice Pfeifer, the author of the dissent, is somewhat well-known for not putting much value on issuing decisions in a speedy fashion. Chief Justice Brown, who joined in the dissent, leaves the Court in early January because he lost an election. End result is that the Court has to rush through deciding a whole bunch of cases that Brown has participated and voted on in a short period of time. Combine that with a judge who prefers to take his time, and you get a dissent that long on conclusions, short on reasoning to get there.
If by “affirmative action”, you mean that which protects white, ex-farmer, males in their late 60s…
December 30, 2010, 9:14 pmLarryA says:
Agreed.
I remember when I first got my driver’s license, the same was true of driving laws. Right-turn-on-red legal in some states but not others, wide variation in yield signs, etc. Congress finally came up with a model for states to use.
I’d propose a compromise: Go with the average. Whatever gun laws are in effect in over half the states would be the national law. Unfortunately the gun control folks would blow a gasket, as it would toss out 9/10ths of the Brady agenda.
December 30, 2010, 10:51 pmSDN says:
The other constant is that after you’ve patched a system enough times, it can’t be patched; it has to be rewritten to the requirements.
December 31, 2010, 10:10 amSDN says:
Which is why you don’t use 00 buck; you use #4. You get more total mass because the smaller shot pack more closely, without the overpenetration. Of course, you look less like Rambo without the Scary Black Rifle….
December 31, 2010, 10:13 amPersonFromPorlock says:
It should also be pointed out that buckshot is going 1200-1400 fps, while a 5.56 is going 3200 fps. That gives the bullet about six times the kinetic energy of the #00 shot.
December 31, 2010, 11:05 amLarryA says:
With the quibble that it will most likely be included in legislation President Obama wants to sign rather than a stand-alone bill. Unfortunate, as watching him respond to a straight-up gun rights law would be a lot more fun.
OTOH with Iowa’s announcement (PDF, scroll down) that it will honor all valid state licenses starting day after tomorrow, as a Texan with a CHL I’m already able to carry concealed in 32 of the 50 states.
December 31, 2010, 12:38 pmOrenWithAnE says:
How about whichever gun laws are in effect in States with over half the population? That’s more of an average, and would end up being a somewhat more moderate jurisdiction (I’m guessing OR or similar).
I’m not sure that he wants to risk a squeaker of a veto override vote. I count 64 votes in the senate and 320ish votes in the House in favor of this legislation, Obama might yet ‘win’ but it would demonstrate the weakness of his position.
December 31, 2010, 4:49 pmDoes Ohio Supreme Court ruling send signal about Seattle parks gun ban case? says:
[...] attention of the New York Times and Associated Press. It is also discussed this morning by blogger Eugene Volokh. Oho Attorney General Richard Cordray hailed the ruling, as did the NRA and Ohioans for Concealed [...]
December 31, 2010, 8:10 pmLarryA says:
It might depend on when you count. After the census, population shifts will result in the shift of twelve U.S. Representatives. The Brady score average for the representatives lost is 28.8. The Brady score average for the representatives gained is 7.8. That indicates over the last decade there was a definite shift of population away from the gun-control states.
The “over half the population” state for 2010 is Colorado, with 15 out of Brady’s 100 points.
It’s Congress that decides how a bill advances. I think they’ll think it easier to attach gun rights legislation to other bills. Unless, of course, the Republicans want to pick a fight.
January 1, 2011, 12:09 amOrenWithAnE says:
Sounds fine to me. Shall issue CCW, State preemption, reasonable Stand-Your-Ground. Most of the States ‘in the middle’ are not that far apart.
I didn’t think that it would make a huge difference but I have a sort of philosophical problem with saying that the average gun law is the average of States, not the average over people. Offtopic: this is my objection to Randy’s Repeal Amendment as well.
I meant that if Congress passes it as a standalone, Obama might not veto it given the very real risk that the veto would be overridden. My apologies for not being clear.
January 1, 2011, 1:44 pmLarryA says:
Ah. I agree, he might not veto. Which would leave the Brady folks up in arms. ;-)
OTOH I don’t think Barak’ll stage a Rose Garden photo op signing.
January 2, 2011, 10:52 pm