David Hardy

David Hardy Blogs

Blog Authors

Latest from David Hardy

Story here. “The criminal probe is being conducted by the D.C. Office of the Inspector General. It comes as an outside team of experts retained by federal prosecutors to review some of the lab’s casework said the department’s firearms unit should immediately cease its casework, citing “very serious” problems with lab management that have “cast doubt on the reliability of the work product of the entire DFS laboratory.””…
A rather strange sequence of events. It’s illegal for a person who is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any Controlled Substance” to obtain or possess a firearm, and a buyer from a dealer must certify he is not such. To be fair, it would have been hard to prosecute, since the requirement is phrased in the present tense, and Biden could have argued he didn’t have his nose full of coke the day he bought it. But, also to be fair, our ruling class should be held to tighter standards than we subjects. I know, that’s not…
The case is Gun Owners of America v. Garland, handed down today. The big issue was Chevron deference, under which a court defers to an agency interpretation of an ambiguous law. A couple of wonderful quotes: “Notwithstanding the ATF’s frequent reversals on major policy issues, we understand that the Court would consider the bureaucrats at the ATF as experts in firearms technology. But that technical knowledge is inapposite to the question of what should be criminally punished and what should not.” “Consistent with our precedent and mandated by separation-of-powers and fair-notice concerns, we hold that an administering agency’s interpretation…
Opinion here. The Ninth Circuit ruling en banc 7-4, if my count is correct, upholds Hawaii’s “may issue” (which is practice is “won’t issue”) permit system for firearms carry. A major part of the huge opinion is devoted to claiming that Medieval English kings, and the statute of Northampton, restricted going “armed” in public. I’ve compiled quite a bit of historical evidence that up through Tudor times, “armed” meant wearing armor, not carrying weapons. In that era, carrying blades was simply being well-dressed, and carrying bow and arrows was simply performing one’s legal duty. Wearing armor, on the other…
Some thoughts on the possible impact of Lange v. California, which was recently argued in the Supreme Court. A number of the Justices seem to be skeptical, in the 4th Amendment context, of drawing lines based on the felony vs. misdemeanor distinction, and to be alert to the fact that today we have a lot of felonies that involve minor and non-dangerous conduct.…
The National Guard has been called in, to be mistreated and guard against… what, exactly? The Capitol Hill police have 2,000 sworn officers (more than, in my case, patrol the entire of Pima County and the city of Tucson, an area with a million people, larger than some states), who keep the peace on Capitol Hill, an area of two square miles. If they are not enough, the Park Police and DC Metropolitan Police Department (3,800 sworn officers, for an area of about 80 square miles) have concurrent jurisdiction there. If you need some kick-ass enforcement, the Park Police have…
NY State Rifle and Pistol Ass’n v. Corlett up for a March 26 vote on whether to accept review. Question presented: “… numerous courts of appeals have squarely divided on this critical question: whether the Second Amendment allows the government to deprive ordinary law-abiding citizens of the right to possess and carry a handgun outside the home. This circuit split is open and acknowledged, and it is squarely presented by this petition, in which the Second Circuit affirmed the constitutionality of a New York regime that prohibits law-abiding individuals from carrying a handgun unless they first demonstrate some form of…
The 3 judge panel upheld the government’s position, a majority of the entire court voted to rehear it en banc, and now the court decides to dismiss the en banc case and reinstate the panel opinion. The dissents from this lay out a very good legal criticism of the panel discussion. One of these cases might just be cert-worthy, in order to review Chevron deference. Here the court is supposed to defer to the agency interpretation of law (what is a machine gun) when the agency reversed its position… why is its first position not as entitled to deference…