Warning And Call To Action For Illinois Residents

In the wake of the 7th Circuit's ludicrous decision in Friedman v. City of Highland Park in which the court upheld a gun ban based on "feelings", the gun prohibitionists in the Illinois legislature are trying to strike while the iron is hot. State Sen. Julie Morrison (D-Deerfield) has filed SB 2130 which would eliminate state preemption of local firearm ordinances. The state preemption of local ordinances was part of the grand compromise in the bill that allowed shall-issue carry in Illinois. Assault weapons (sic) bans in place before July 19, 2013 were allowed to remain in plan but no new ones could be enacted.

Both Illinois Carry and the Illinois State Rifle Association have issued alerts for their members and supporters on Sen. Morrison's move to gut state preemption.

From Illinois Carry:

Currently, the Firearm Concealed Carry Act and FOID Act concerning concealed carry and transportation of firearms is the same throughout the entire state. On May 5, 2015, Senator Julie Morrison filed SB2130 Firearm Owners ID - Assault Weapons, a bill proposing to eliminate preemption of local ordinance related to modern sporting firearms and their accessories. Preemption was included as agreed language when the Firearm Concealed Carry Act was passed and, at the time, allowed ample opportunity for home rule municipalities desiring local regulation to enact such ordinances.

Eliminating preemption now would open the door to an ever growing patchwork of ordinances, making it nearly impossible for law abiding citizens to understand the legal status of their firearms when moving from place to place, and could turn legal firearms into illegal firearms in the blink of an eye.

This late in the session we do not get the same advance notice of committee hearings, readings, etc.. Everything is ramped up to move fast, sometimes overnight or faster, so instead of waiting for notice to file witness slips, it's time to go directly to your legislators and voice your position. Please contact Senator Morrison immediately and express your concern about her bill interfering with your rights as a law abiding firearm owner.

Senator Morrison can be reached at:

(217) 782-3650
(847) 945-5200

jmorrison@senatedem.ilga.gov

Please contact your own State Senator to voice your opposition to SB2130.

Telephone numbers and email addresses can be found at this link.

I will add the Illinois State Rifle Association alert at a later time as I don't have access to it at work.

UPDATE: Here is the alert from ISRA.

URGENT ALERT - YOUR IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED

MASSIVE GUN GRAB INTRODUCED IN ILLINOIS SENATE

IF THEY WIN - THEY'LL EMPTY YOUR GUN CABINET
Anti-gun extremist State Senator Julie Morrison (D-Deerfield) has introduced a dangerous gun control bill that would ban the possession of most of the guns you now own. If passed, SB 2130 would allow city councils and village boards to decide which firearms you would be allowed to own - and you know what that means.

Many insiders believe that SB 2130 is the gun control movement's first stab at legislation that would allow city councils and village boards regulate concealed carry at the local level - and you know what that means too.

THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT TOGETHER WE MUST STOP SB 2130

The gun-grabbers have tipped their hand. They are planning a full-out assault on your gun rights in the closing days of the spring legislative session.

HERE'S WHAT YOU NEED TO DO TO SAVE YOUR GUN RIGHTS:

1. Call State Senator Julie Morrison at (217) 782-3650 and politely tell the person that answers the phone that you are a law-abiding firearm owner and that you oppose Julie Morrison's efforts to crush your gun rights. You should also call Senator Morrison's district office at (847) 945-5200 to deliver that same message.

2. Call your state senator and politely tell him or her that you are a law-abiding firearm owner and that you do not appreciate Sen. Morrison's efforts to restrict your rights. Politely ask your senator to vote against SB 2130. If you do not know who your senator is, or if you do not know how to get in touch with your senator, then click this link: Find Your Senator.

3. Please post this alert to any and all Internet blogs, bulletin boards or social media sites to which you belong.

4. Pass this alert on to your friend and family and ask them to make phone calls as well.

REMEMBER - ONLY YOU CAN STOP THE GUN-GRABBERS FROM DESTROYING THE 2nd AMENDMENT!

Defense Distributed, SAF Sue John Kerry And The State Department

Cody Wilson of Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation have joined forces to sue the State Department on First, Second, and Fifth Amendment grounds. They contend the the State Department through its Directorate of Defense Trade Controls misused ITAR regulations to force Defense Distributed to take down its files for the Liberator pistol among other items. The State Department's Office of Legal Counsel as far back as 1978 had said that the use of ITAR to impose prior restraint on "privately generated unclassified information in the public domain" violated the First Amendment.

The big guns are being brought to bear on this fight. Lead counsel is Alan Gura. The legal team also includes Prof. Josh Blackman of South Texas College of Law who has published on this topic in the Tennessee Law Review and attorneys from the global intellectual property firm of Fish & Richardson (no relation!). Fish & Richardson just happens to be the top intellectual property firm in the United States by all rankings.

The complaint can be  found here.

The Second Amendment Foundation has more on the lawsuit below:

SAF Sues Feds Over Censorship Of 3-D Firearms Printing Information

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today joined Defense Distributed of Austin, Texas, in filing a federal lawsuit against Secretary of State John Kerry, the Department of State and other federal officials, seeking to stop the Government’s unconstitutional censorship of information related to the three-dimensional printing of arms.

The Government’s restraint against the publication of this critical information, under the guise of controlling arms exports, violates the First Amendment right to free speech, the Second Amendment right to bear arms, and the Fifth Amendment right to due process, the lawsuit alleges.

SAF and Defense Distributed seek to publish 3-D printing information at no cost to the public. Constitutional attorney Alan Gura of Gura & Possessky leads the litigation team, which also includes William “Tommy” Jacks, Bill Mateja, and David Morris of Fish & Richardson; export control counsel Matthew Goldstein, and constitutional law Professor Josh Blackman.

“Americans have always been free to exchange information about firearms and manufacture their own arms,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We also have an expectation that any speech regulations be spelled out clearly, and that individuals be provided basic procedural protections if their government claims a power to silence them.”

The lawsuit asserts the defendants are unlawfully applying International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to prevent the plaintiffs from exercising in free speech on the Internet and other forums. ITAR “requires advance government authorization to export technical data,” the complaint asserts. There are criminal and civil penalties for violations, ranging up to 20 years in prison and fines of up to $1 million per violation.

Defense Distributed generated technical information on various gun-related items, which it published on the Internet. But it removed all the files from its servers upon being warned that it “may have released ITAR-controlled technical data without the required prior authorization from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), a violation of the ITAR.” In June 2013, Defense Distributed submitted various published files to DDTC for review of a machine called the “Ghost Gunner.” In April, DDTC said the machine does not fall under ITAR, but that software and files are subject to State Department jurisdiction.

“Defense Distributed appears to be caught in what seems to be a bureaucratic game of merry-go-round,” Gottlieb said. “The right to keep and bear arms includes the ability to acquire or create arms. The government is engaging in behavior that denies the company due process under the Fifth Amendment. We’re compelled to file this action because the bureaucracy is evidently playing games and it’s time for these agencies to behave.”

Just think, if Hillary Clinton had hung around a little longer at the State Department, the suit could have been titled Defense Distributed et al v. Hillary Clinton et al!

UPDATE: This case has caught the attention of the New York Times and Wired. I'm not surprised by Wired but the Times is a bit surprising. They note that Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed have a "high-powered legal team" and quote another First Amendment expert as saying this lawsuit is "not frivolous". Hmm.

Sebastian also has some more on the case here.

An Excellent Proposal

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL) represents the 3rd District of Alabama. Within that district sits the Anniston Army Depot, the CMP-South sales and administrative operations, and the new CMP Talladega Marksmanship Park. Given that parts of Ft. Benning and Maxwell-Gunter AFB are also in his district, it is not surprising Rep. Rogers sits on the House Armed Services Committee. He is the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces and is a member of the Readiness Subcommittee which handles much of defense budget.

Rep. Rogers has come up with a budget saving idea that warms my heart. Currently, the Department of Defense spends about $200,000 annually to store approximately 90,000 M1911A1 pistols. Rogers is proposing that these pistols be transferred to the CMP and offered for sale. He made an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2016 on this proposal and it was passed.

“As a gun owner and strong believer in the Second Amendment, my proposal is a common-sense approach to eliminating an unnecessary cost to the Federal government while allowing the very capable CMP to handle the sale of these vintage firearms that otherwise would just sit in storage. This amendment is a win – win for the taxpayer. I was pleased the amendment passed the committee and appreciate the support my colleagues on this proposal,” Rogers said.

Currently, the Army stores excess M1911A1 pistols, which used to be the standard U.S. Armed Forces sidearm, until it was replace by the Berretta 9mm pistol. Besides the 8,300 pistols that have been sold to law enforcement and transferred to foreign countries for a small price, the rest of the M1911A1 pistols are now being held in storage costing the taxpayer around $200,000 a year.

Transferring these vintage pistols to the CMP would allow them to inspect, grade, prepare for sale and sell these pistols. The CMP would reimburse the Army for costs associated with transferring the pistols. CMP South, headquartered in Anniston, Alabama, oversees sales. CMP North is headquartered in Camp Perry, Ohio.

 WTVM 13 in Birmingham has more on the story here.

I agree with the congressman that this is a win-win. Now I need to rejoin a CMP-affiliated club and get on their approved rolls in order to purchase one of these (and perhaps a Garand or two).

Bloomberg's Minions Win In Oregon

With apologies to all my good friends in California, Oregon, and Washington State but the Pacific Coast is not also called the Sinister Coast for nothing. Yesterday, the Oregon House of Representatives voted 32 to 28 to concur on SB 941. This follows the 17-13 vote on April 14th by the Oregon Senate to pass the bill.

Governor Kate Brown (D-OR) indicated through her spokesperson that she would be signing the bill. According to The Oregonian, she is a gun control supporter of long standing. Brown assumed the Oregon governorship when ex-Gov. John Kitzhaber (D-OR) resigned the office under a cloud of scandal. 

Senate Bill 941, according to its summary, would:

Requires private person to complete transfer of firearm by appearing with transferee before gun dealer to request criminal background check or shipping or delivering firearm to gun dealer in certain circumstances. Specifies exceptions for family members, law enforcement, inherited firearms and certain temporary transfers. Punishes violation by maximum of one year’s imprisonment, $6,250 fine, or both, or maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment, $250,000 fine, or both, for second or subsequent offense.

[Requires] Authorizes Department of State Police to notify [local] appropriate law enforcement agency when, during criminal background check performed prior to transfer of firearm, department determines that recipient is prohibited from possessing firearm.

Authorizes court to prohibit person ordered to participate in assisted outpatient treatment from purchasing or possessing firearm during period of treatment if certain criteria are met.

Declares emergency, effective on passage.

Unlike the I-594 which passed in Washington State, SB 941 is a bit more clear about what is a transfer and what isn't. The bill says a transfer is a sale, gift, loan, or lease of a firearm with certain exceptions made for "temporary transfers".  Among the exceptions are when at a range whether for just target practice or a class; when hunting; when sent to a gunsmith or someone who customizes firearms; and when loaned to prevent "imminent death or serious physical injury" but only as long as needed to prevent death or injury. I will say that last exception is a bit vague. How do you determine when the threat begins or ends?

The vote for this bill was along party lines. In the Senate, 17 out of 18 Democrats voted for the bill while all 12 Republicans plus St. Sen. Betsy Johnson (D-Scappoose) voted no. Meanwhile in the House, 32 out of 35 Democrats voted for the the bill while all 25 Republicans voted no along with Democrat Representatives Jeff Barker (D-Aloha), Caddy McKeown (D-Coos Bay), and Brad Witt (D-Clatskanie).

Excuse this tangent but what I found so striking about both houses of the Oregon Legislature is that they are so overwhelmingly white. I don't mean just predominantly white - I mean lily white or, as Procol Harum sang, a whiter shade of pale. The only minority in the State Senate is a Republican woman - Sen. Jackie Winters (R-Salem). In the House, it is barely better. Rep. Lew Frederick (D-Portland) is the only African-American while Representatives Jessica Vega Pederson (D-Portland) and Joe Gallegos (D-Hillsboro) appear to be the only Hispanics in the legislature. According to US Census figures, Oregon is 77.5% white, 2% black, 4% Asian, and 12% Hispanic which includes "white Hispanics".

If Oregon was either a Southern or conservative state or both, the Justice Department under both Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch would have been all over them demanding answers. Since it isn't, all is well.

Back on topic, I think the politicians who voted to preserve the Second Amendment rights of Oregonians should be recognized.

In the Senate: Senators Baertschiger, Boquist, Ferrioli, Girod,Hansell, Johnson, Knopp, Kruse, Olsen, Thatcher, Thomsen, Whitsett, and Winters.

In the House: Representatives McLane, Barker, Barreto, Bentz, Buehler, Davis, Esquivel, Gilliam, Hack, Hayden, Heard, Huffman, Johnson, Kennemer, Krieger, McKeown, Nearman, Olson, Parrish, Post, Smith, Sprenger, Stark, Weidner, Whisnant, Whitsett, Wilson, and Witt.

 (The Democrats are in italic)

A Couple Of Tidbits From Ruger's Quarterly Report

After the close of the stock market yesteday, Sturm, Ruger & Co. released their quarterly earnings report. Below are a couple of tidbits that I gleaned from it which I thought were interesting.

• In the first quarter of 2015, net sales and the estimated sell-through of the Company’s products from the independent distributors to retailers increased 12% and 15%, respectively, from the fourth quarter of 2014. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System background checks (as adjusted by the National Shooting Sports Foundation) decreased 15% during the same period.

• New products, including the AR-556 modern sporting rifle and the LC9s pistol, represented $22.8 million or 17% of firearm sales in the first quarter of 2015. New product sales include only major new products that were introduced in the past two years.

It looks like Ruger has done well even if the market has contracted somewhat. It would be interesting to know how much of the new sales were attributable to the AR-556 and how much to the LC9s. With the market demands for ARs cooling somewhat if prices are any indication, I'm guessing the LC9s represented more than 50% of the $22.8 million in sales.

Ruger holds it annual shareholder's meeting this morning. It is being webcast and you can see it at this link.

But What If...

Knife Rights put out a release this past Friday that I didn't notice until Monday. In it, they discuss the arrest for having a "concealed switchblade" of Freddie Gray in Baltimore. I have posted the release below along with the links.

Knife Rights brings up some interesting points and makes me say, "What if".

What if Freddie Gray had not been arrested.

What if police treated all knives like ordinary tools.

What if knife laws weren't based on a 1950s West Side Story myth.

What if the knife hadn't had a clip - would he still have been stopped.

I'm not saying Baltimore wouldn't have erupted in the not so distant future. They will always be more incidents that the hucksters and their complicit media allies will play up. I am also not saying that Freddie Gray might not have been arrested for something else. I am saying that policies, laws, and ordinances the encourage the police to stop anyone with a knife that has a pocket clip are flawed, out of date, and unreasonable.

May 1, 2015 - Gilbert, AZ: In the case of the arrest on a knife charge and subsequent death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore, Baltimore City State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby charged that Freddie Gray was falsely arrested and that the knife in his pocket was not an illegal switchblade. Mosby is filing murder charges against one officer while others are being charged with crimes including manslaughter and assault.

According to news reports and court documents, Freddie Gray was arrested after a police officer supposedly found a "switchblade" in his pocket. But, the court documents (click to review) reveal something else: "The officer noticed a knife clipped to the inside of his front right pants pocket. The defendant was arrested without force or incident," the documents say. "The knife was recovered by this officer and found to be a spring-assisted, one-hand-operated knife." (Emphasis added.) Note that the officer did not refer to the knife as a "switchblade."

Maryland law (§4–101) prohibits concealed carry of switchblades, but open carry and possession are not illegal. The court documents state that the knife was visibly clipped to Gray's pocket. Therefore, it was not concealed, and accordingly not illegal, even if it had been a switchblade. But, it clearly wasn't even a switchblade according to the court documents -- it was an assisted-opening knife (meaning that the blade had to be opened manually part way before the spring assist was engaged and opened it the rest of the way).

Maryland does not have knife law preemption, so municipalities such as Baltimore are allowed to fabricate laws more restrictive than the state itself. Baltimore's city code (§ 59-22 Switch-blade knives) prohibits the sale, carry or possession of "any knife with an automatic spring or other device for opening and/or closing the blade, commonly known as a switch-blade knife." While it might be possible in theory to interpret that unusual definition of "switch-blade" to include assisted-opening knives, such an interpretation would conflict with virtually all other switchblade definitions throughout the country. Additionally, the court documents show that the arresting officer clearly knew it was not a switchblade; the officer easily could have referred to it as a switchblade instead of accurately describing it as a "spring-assisted, one-hand-operated knife."

While it is theoretically possible that without the presence of a knife in his pocket, Gray might have been arrested on some other trumped-up charge, it is clear that the presence of a knife was used as the actual basis for the arrest, and the practice has unfortunately become a common one.

Thousands of law-abiding citizens are regularly harassed and arrested for nothing more than carrying this basic tool, and that is unacceptable. Knife Rights is committed to forging a Sharper Future™ by passing knife law preemption and removing all restrictions on the lawful carry of knives. Those who misuse any tool (knife or otherwise) in the commission of a crime should be severely punished, but law-abiding citizens who possess knives should be left alone.

Charging Documents in Freddie Gray Case: http://www.kniferights.org/263171878-Freddie-Gray-Charging-Documents.pdf

Maryland Switchblade Law: http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmStatutesText.aspx?article=gcr&section=4-101&ext=html&session=2015RS&tab=subject5

Baltimore Switchblade Law: http://baltimorecode.org/19/59/59-22/

As a final aside, I met with a client yesterday who always brings me inexpensive knives as a gift.  The knife I got yesterday had a clip and was a switchblade.

UPDATE: Attorney Andrew Branca has an excellent post up at Legal Insurrection concerning probable cause and the arrest of Freddie Gray. He notes that whether or not the knife in question was actually illegal is irrelevant to the issue of probable cause. This reinforces my point that knife laws are so convoluted and so out of date that you probably could find probable cause to stop someone for carrying a Case Tiny Trapper which is all of 2 3/8 inches closed.

Bad Apple Lawyers - The Theorist

I had intended to start my series on Bad Apple Lawyers with the current head of the Brady Center's Legal Action Project, Jonathan E. Lowy. However, the more I read, the more I was convinced that I needed to go back further to the law professor who helped initiate the use of lawfare against the gun industry with his novel legal theory. That professor is David Kairys of Temple University School of Law.

Kairys (right) after a recent lecture at Swarthmore College

Just as the Communist revolutionaries Lenin and Mao needed the theorist Karl Marx for their revolutions, so, too, did the tort attorneys need the theories of David Kairys for their attack on the gun industry in conjunction with anti-gun mayors. Kairys, who made his name in the 60s, 70s, and 80s as a civil rights lawyer, advanced the theory that gun makers and dealers could be sued on the grounds that they were creating a public nuisance through "irresponsible marketing of handguns".

A younger Kairys (center) with his client Dr. Benjamin Spock (right)

According to Howard Erichson, in the book Suing the Gun Industry: A Battle at the Crossroads of Gun Control and Mass Torts, Kairys first brought his theory to the City of Philadelphia and then-Mayor Ed Rendell. In turn, he was hired to draft the complaint. However, just before Kairys and the legal team were to file the lawsuit, Rendell got cold feet in the face of criticism as well as his own desire to be governor of Pennsylvania. Kairys had to look elsewhere to peddle his theory of guns as a public nuisance.

That elsewhere was Chicago where Mayor Richard M. Daley was looking for a way to attack the firearms industry. By happenstance, Kairys heard that Daley's city lawyers were making inquiries about his theory and he contacted them. Chicago used Kairys public nuisance theory as the centerpiece of the lawsuit that they filed in late 1998. Though Chicago had tough gun control laws, gangs and criminals were still obtaining firearms. Chicago contended that these weapons were coming from unscrupulous gun shops outside the city who engaged in dubious sales. To Kairys' and Chicago's mind, this constituted a public nuisance for which the city was entitled to stop.

Mass tort actions, especially those brought by plaintiffs' attorneys (aka ambulance chasers), depend upon a large number of individuals harmed. When dealing with asbestos or tobacco, it was easier to find potential clients. However, when dealing with gun shot victims, there are many fewer and it was harder to line up potential clients. Thus the alliance with municipalities was critical for both the private plaintiffs attorneys who handled cases for New Orleans and other locales and for those who used Kairys' public nuisance theory. By taking the focus off the individual and putting it on a mass group, the "blame the smoker" approach of defense attorneys is harder to employ. Erichson noted this in his essay for Suing the Gun Industry.

As a matter of causation, plaintiffs in individual gun cases have difficulty proving that different industry conduct would have prevented a particular victim's shooting. Municipal gun lawsuits, by treating the harm on an aggregate level in terms of cost to the municipality, remove attention from any individual shooting and thus diminish the power of the defense arguments that focus on blameworthy victims, owners, or shooters. Thus, the public entity plaintiff in tobacco litigation is less vulnerable to to the defendants' "blame the smoker" argument for contributory negligence, comparative fault, or assumption of risk, while the public entity plaintiff in gun litigation is less vulnerable to the defendants' "blame the shooter" argument for superseding cause or for challenging actual causation.

In a discussion of the firearms lawsuits of the late 90s and early 200s, Kairys himself notes that the predominant legal theory of public nuisance was new. It was also a unique tort which had as its hallmark the incompatibility of the defendant's conduct with the public's rights. Normally, when one thinks of a public nuisance, you think of unkempt homes, air and water pollution, and crack houses. Kairys contended that firearms manufacturers intentionally saturated the market with small and, in his words, crime-friendly, handguns knowing that some dealers and distributors allowed diversion to criminals through straw purchases or outright illegal sales. He further contended that manufacturers knew or should have known who the problem dealers were due to requests for gun traces from the ATF.

Kairys laid out his theory in a number of law journal articles and book chapters. The quote below comes from his essay, "The Cities Take the Initiative: Public Nuisance Lawsuits against Handgun Manufacturers."

The conduct that forms the basis of the claim is their distribution of handguns. The public nuisance is not handguns or criminals but those items in combination - criminals and youths with handguns - a combination that the manufacturers facilitate with full knowledge of what they are doing and of the consequences.

He said that three of the recognized grounds for establishing the public nuisance tort apply to the gun makers. First, they interfere with public safety given the criminal misuse of handguns. Second, he accuses them of reckless conduct by continuing to sell to distributors or dealers they "know" are doing the most harm. Finally, he says manufacturers' actions are "unreasonable on the totality of the circumstances." That is, there is no legitimate interest in criminals or prohibited persons getting guns and that the gun makers only care about their profits. He says that the makers could take "reasonable actions" by refusing to sell to certain dealers or distributors that they "know" are conduits to criminals.

Congress decided that both the public nuisance theory and product defect theory were flawed when applied to the firearms industry. They passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 2005 as a response to this misuse of the courts. Kairys railed against the law's passage in an article in Slate in which he said the Congress and the President had given the gun industry "immunity from the rule of law."

It was not only Congress that thought the public nuisance theory flawed. So too did the Illinois Supreme Court when it agreed with the trial court that the dismissal of City of Chicago v. Beretta was warranted. They said, in conclusion, that:

Any change of this magnitude in the law affecting a highly regulated industry must be the work of the legislature, brought about by the political process, not the work of the courts. In response to the suggestion of amici that we are abdicating our responsibility to declare the common law, we point to the virtue of judicial restraint.

Even with rulings like Beretta (above) and the PLCAA, the public nuisance theory is not dead. In the recently dismissed Phillips et al v. Lucky Gunner et al, the Brady Center and their associated attorneys still clung, in part, to this theory. They accused Lucky Gunner and the other defendants of violating Colorado and Aurora laws and ordinances concerning public nuisances. They also asked the court for an order "enjoining or abating the public nuisance."

Kairys is 72 years old now. He graduated from Cornell in 1965, from Columbia Law in 1968, and took a LLM from U.Penn in 1971. In addition to his work on gun control, he is the editor of The Politics of Law: A Progressive Critique which is now in its third edition. As I alluded to in the first picture, he defended Dr. Benjamin Spock in a free speech case during the Vietnam War. He also has written a memoir of his days as a civil rights lawyer in Philadelphia fighting the Philly PD and Mayor Frank Rizzo called Philadelphia Freedom. He donated his papers to the University of Pennsylvania.

Kairys is married to Antje Mattheus. She is a German immigrant who came to the US in 1974 to work with the United Farm Workers Union. She has written about non-violent self-defense for Waging Nonviolence. Kairys met Mattheus when he represented her in a "post-demonstration incident with State Police." Together they have been restoring Cresheim Farm in the Mt. Airy section of Philadelphia since 1988.

David Kairys' contribution to the anti-Second Amendment forces was his theory on controlling gun makers as a public nuisance. It was the basis for many of the municipal lawsuits and is still being used by the Brady Center today in their "Bad Apple" lawsuits. It is a shame that a civil rights attorney who seemingly had great respect for the First Amendment and individual rights has so little respect for the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, that dichotomy is altogether much too common among so-called progressives.

Happy May Day

Today is May Day which is also known as International Workers' Day. It was chosen as that by the Second International which was an organization of socialist and labor parties. Perhaps its most notorious member (or illustrious depending on your view of Communism) was none other than Vladimir Lenin himself.

May Day Poster, 1930

It used to be the day that you saw big parades of Soviet tanks and missile launchers in Red Square. Under the other Vladimir - Putin - that has been moved to World War II Victory Day on May 9th. The Russians plan to unveil their new main battle tank, the Armata T-14, at the massive parade.

May Day, Red Square 1964

And finally, in the stuff you find when looking for something else category comes this. I was following a link posted by Prof. David Yamane at his Gun Culture 2.0 blog about Jennifer Dawn Carlson's article in the Wall Street Journal. Carlson is a sociologist at the University of Toronto who has written a well received new book on those who carry, open and concealed, entitled Citizen-Protectors: The Everyday Politics of Guns in an Age of Decline. This, in turn, led me to the location of one of her recent talks about her research.

How appropriate that one of the universities most associated with the left-wing has a research institute dedicated to the study of "the right-wing".

The mission of the Center, which is housed at the Institute for the Study of Societal Issues (ISSI), is twofold: first, to identify right-wing movements, flesh out their twentieth-century histories (how they aligned and how they survived) while isolating their novel aspects in the 21st century; and second, to develop and apply principles of how right-wing thought, ideology and organizational capacities operate to understand the state of the contemporary Right and identify its likely directions and successes.

Their research collection includes files on the NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, and the Second Amendment Sisters. This is in addition to those other notorious right-wingers such as Cowboys for Christ, the PTL Club, and the Cato Institute. I guess Christians, cowboys, televangelists, and libertarians are all part of the mix they consider "right-wing".