Put That In Your Musket And Shoot It!

As noted on Universal Hub, today in Commonwealth v. Runyan, No. SJC-10480, the Supreme Judicial Court held (i) that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states; and (ii) that even if it did, requiring people to lock up their guns would still pass constitutional muster. The former issue is currently under intense consideration in the United States Supreme Court. For much more on that, the best place to go is here.

As for the latter issue, Justice Gants makes what appears to be an unassailable point in footnote 8:

We also note that, even if a firearm were secured in the manner required by G.L. c. 140, § 131L (a ), a gun owner threatened in his or her home today would be able to fire the weapon in self-defense at least as quickly as would a gun owner in 1791, when the Second Amendment was adopted. At that time, laws were in effect requiring that gunpowder be stored separately from firearms, which meant that a law-abiding homeowner acting in self-defense would need time to load and fire a musket or flintlock pistol. See Heller, supra at 2849-2850 (Breyer, J., dissenting). A skilled soldier of that time using specially prepared cartridges required a minimum of fifteen to twenty seconds to load and fire a musket; a less skilled soldier could fire no more quickly than once per minute. Hicks, United States Military Shoulder Arms, 1795-1935, 1 Am. Military Hist. Found. 23, 30-31 (1937). A gun owner today could remove a firearm from a locked container or release a trigger lock more quickly than that.

If you're going to be an originalist, you'd better be prepared to deal with the consequences.*

*I predict without fear that the usual suspects will try with all their might to puncture Mr. Hicks's "once per minute" datum. (The good thing about this prediction is that I'll even be happy if I'm wrong . . . .)

People And Guns Killing Each Other

You may remember this post from a few months ago about Bristol County's effort to argue that possession of an unlicensed gun entitles the district attorney to hold offenders without bail pending trial. A Superior Court judge didn't buy the argument. Neither did the SJC, as it revealed yesterday in Commonwealth v. Young, No. SJC-10147.

The question, again, is whether unlawfully carrying a gun is a "felony that by its nature involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person of another may result . . . ." Four of the five justices answer in the negative. They write that the crime of unlawful possession is "passive and victimless." In support of this argument, they persuasively tell us that "the motive of an unlicensed possessor is totally irrelevant to criminal liability . . . ." At the end of the same paragraph, they sort of go off the cliff, though: they tells us that a person who is lawfully possessing a gun might use it for an unlawful purpose. Maybe the point of this digression was edited out. Maybe I'm dense. I'm not seeing the significance of that.

Justice Cowin dissents. And her dissent is the more interesting of the two opinions. She makes it quite clear how she feels about all of this. She says:

• The majority's "conclusion may well come as a surprise to those escalating numbers who are victimized, or who have observed others victimized, by the use of unlawfully possessed firearms, as well as to those whose reading of the daily newspaper communicates the stunning social costs of our failure to address seriously the problems associated with the alarmingly increasing use of such weapons."
• "The court does not address effectively either the obvious relationship between unlicensed firearms and their use in violent behavior or the alarming proliferation of such weapons and their use in antisocial activity. Instead, the court resorts to a most subtle distinction between possession of an unlicensed firearm and the use of that firearm. Ante at. Reduced to its minimum, that is simply a reiteration of the tired slogan that 'guns don't kill people, people do.' We know this to be a dangerous oversimplification. The fact is that people kill people with guns, and in a substantial number of cases those guns are unlicensed."
• "[A] fair reading of the statute would reject the pretense that a firearm is some neutral piece of equipment that is harmless in and of itself, and would recognize at a minimum the deadly sequence that so often follows on the possession of an unlicensed firearm."

The prose is pretty compelling. The certitude of the dissent, however, doesn't quite work. Because this is a tough issue. "Try as I might," Justice Cowin writes, "I cannot understand how possession of a firearm in violation of applicable licensing law can constitute anything other than a substantial risk that the firearm will be used to effect 'physical force against the person of another.'" That's a candid admission of where she's coming from.

But then Justice Cowin says: "When a handgun or automatic weapon is involved, the purpose of the firearm is to injure or kill; there is no other reason for that weapon's existence." In Justice Cowin's analysis, it looks like a person who lets her registration lapse on a handgun that never leaves her house and is used entirely for self defense in the event all hell breaks loose would have to deal with defending herself at a dangerousness hearing. And that doesn't feel right.

Part of the problem here is the squishy language of the statute. A "substantial risk"? That physical force "may result"? That can mean anything. And when you're talking about taking away a person's freedom, that can't be okay.

A rather hilarious final point is found in Footnote 13 of the majority's opinion: "We note that this case does not require us to decide whether the possession of a pipe bomb, silencer, sawed-off shotgun, or other instrumentality that is generally associated with violence and has little socially useful value, constitutes a predicate offense." That sentence would have made sense if the Court had left out two word: "pipe" and "bomb". A guy with a pipe bomb is dangerous. Period. End of discussion.

New Bedford, Guns & Dangerousness

We learn from this morning's Boston Globe that there's some concern about the Bristol County district attorney's practice of putting people who illegally carry weapons in jail pending trial. And when the concern emanates from Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, the issue deserves some consideration.

The details from the Globe story are sketchy. The statute in question is G.L. c. 276 s. 58A, but the Globe doesn't tell us that. Section 58A allows prosecutors to ask district court judges to detain defendants before trial if the person is accused of:

a felony offense that has as an element of the offense the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another, or any other felony that by its nature involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person of another may result, including the crime of burglary and arson whether or not a person has been placed at risk thereof . . . .

The article states as a factual proposition that "[t]he state law that established dangerousness hearings was enacted in 1994 to combat domestic violence after several defendants free on bail killed their wives or girlfriends."

Is that true, though?

If it is true, then defendants who are simply caught with illegal guns have a compelling argument to make. If, however, the statute was enacted to protect the general public from violent crime (including, of course, domestic violence) perpetrated by defendants out on bail, generally, the defendants here have a less strong argument.

The defendants want the core question to be whether a person carrying an unlicensed gun is dangerous per se. Because the answer to this is probably not.* If Bristol County and C. Samuel Sutter are smart, they'll make the core question whether dangerous people carrying unlicensed guns can be detained pending trial. The answer to this has to be yes. This is example number ten zillion showing that it's important to be the one framing the issues in a case, whether you're in a small claims session or the United States Supreme Court.

Remember too that prosecutors must prove that the defendants in question (197 alone in Bristol County in the last two years, of which 141 were detained) are dangerous. They don't do so in a vacuum. There are hearings. Defendants are represented by their own lawyers.

The article doesn't provide the slightest indication as to whether this policy is working from an objective standpoint, whether gun-related crime is down in New Bedford and Fall River over the last two years. This apparently was not an important enough detail for John R. Ellement or Jonathan Saltzman to tell us about it. Or maybe it was in a draft and it was a casualty of the shrinking news hole. A quick scan of the Google indicates that crime in New Bedford is down from two years ago, but up over last year. So a mixed bag.

Overarching point: there's some question as to whether current laws regulating gun possession are even constitutional anymore.** But until that gets resolved, or the Heller case is overturned, expect to see a lot of hand-wringing about issues like this.

UPDATE: A helpful commenter points us to this article, which indicates that the policy is working.

*But only probably.

**Before you say "Oh no there isn't", ask yourself whether the Supreme Court has explicitly ruled on this issue. Not posited certain reasonable restrictions where those restrictions weren't actually under consideration. No. Actually ruled on the issue. So, yeah, there's some question as to whether laws regulating gun possession are constitutional.

Unsolicited Observation

Not that any of the observations are solicited, but, well, you know.

The case, Commonwealth v. Smith, Appeals Ct. No. 07-P-446, is from last week.

But the question it raises should be asked every single day: what the hell does it say about us that there are metal detectors at the entrance to Brighton High School?

When A Win Is Not A Win

As just about every sentient being expected it would, the U.S. Supreme Court today held in District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-2901, that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to possess a firearm. Given that this amendment was tucked in, oh, the Bill of Rights, this should really not be a controversial conclusion. It's slightly amazing that this was even an issue.

The opinion, on page 57, contains a massive qualification, however. The Court says that "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." And then, in the next paragraph on page 58, the Court says that the Second Amendment doesn't protect possession of "dangerous or unusual weapons." Justice Scalia's example of a "dangerous or unusual weapon"? An M-16. Wow.

Thus the title of this post: When a win is not a win. The Court today may have struck down the DC handgun ban, but it signaled that it would uphold many of the laws that gun enthusiasts have claimed violate their Second Amendment rights. So if the celebration seems muted today, this post should help explain why.

Elementary

The Widget:

Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Judge: Souter
Subject: Guns, drugs
Tone: Subliminally persuasive
Importance: 5.5

A couple of years ago, the Supreme Court held that a defendant who traded his gun for drugs “used” the gun during the transaction for sentencing purposes. Today, in United States v. Watson, U.S. Supreme Court No. 06-571, the Court held that a defendant who traded his drugs for a gun had NOT “used” the gun during the transaction for sentencing purposes.

At first glance, these two decisions seem wacky and irreconcilable. But then you look at them for a couple of minutes, and kind of like this famous E.G. Boring thing, you start to see that they’re compatible.

Professor Reynolds says he sees no Second Amendment implications and then implies that there are Second Amendment implications.