Quicksearch
Your search for "second amendment" returned 18 results:
Sunday, July 4. 2010
Today’s blog entry follows up on my entry from two days ago about July 4.
In the Washington, D.C., area alone, many fireworks displays are happening tonight beyond the main event on the national Mall that follows live music, whose main downside is the little alternative to being sardined on the subway on the way out, unless one has a home or hotel room within walking distance of the display, or wants to wait out the crowds at a bar or restaurant.
A Google search has not yet revealed whether the plethora of July 4 fireworks activity has its roots in a tribute to bombs bursting in air. Possibly not, seeing that fireworks have been around apparently longer before bombs played much of a part in warfare. Whatever the origin of fireworks, I prefer to look at them as sparks of inspiration for more social justice, rather than as having a relation to violence.
In that light, here are some more non-militaristic thoughts for Independence Day:
On June 24, peace scholar Elise Boulding left the planet. Her New York Times obituary describes peace studies as “an interdisciplinary field that examines violent and nonviolent behavior in personal, political and historical contexts and the sources and resolution of conflict.” The Times obituary further reports that:
[Boulding] often said her path in life was determined by World War II. When she was a girl, she recalled, her mother had been homesick for Norway, and young Elise conceived of that country as a haven, a place to hold in reserve as a retreat, where she would always be safe. That vision was shattered in 1940 by the Nazi invasion of Norway. “And that was when I realized that there was no safe place on earth,” she said. “And I knew that I had found my life’s mission.” Tikkun has a good article for progressives neither to ignore July 4 nor to reduce it merely to a weekend at leisure. Although I differ from plenty of items on the so-called progressive agenda –- including my agreement with giving more teeth to the Second Amendment and my leaning towards the majority in Citizens United, on free expression grounds –- the Tikkun rticle has some good chestnuts nevertheless. Stepping back from the politics surrounding the July 4 weekend, I still recognize that a huge number of people are in an at-lesiure spirit this weekend -- other than those whose work goes on despite holidays, including retail and restaurant employees and police and other government personnel working during holidays. My boy, now four years old, will reach his own views on life and politics as time progresses. One thing I am reminded of as I spend the day with him is how it is hardly insignificant that there are many mornings that I go to court before he awakens, and return from jail visits after he has gone to bed. Beyond my writing this blog entry, today with my son is about merrymaking and being carefree. As the original Thich Nhat Hanh calligraphy facing my office visitors confirm: “Breath and Smile.”
By Jon Katz, a criminal defense and DWI defense lawyer practicing in Fairfax County, Virginia, Montgomery County, Maryland and beyond. 301-495-7755. http://katzjustice.com.
Wednesday, April 28. 2010
Bill of Rights (From public domain.) Merely because the Supreme Court's right wing votes in the majority, I do not automatically oppose the opinion or the result. I sided with the rightwingers who gave some teeth to the Second Amendment in Heller, and expect I will agree with the majority outcome by the rightwingers in Citizens United v. FEC once I get around to reading the whole opinion. Let us also remember that one of the justices, Scalia, whom I have wished off the bench since the 1980's still brought us the marvelous Melendez-Diaz opinion which followed his marvelous Crawford opinion. Today we have the rightwingers plus Justice Kennedy, by now a swing vote on so many civil liberties issues, striking down the Ninth Circuit's injunction against the federal government's cynical swap of federal park land to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, to try to say that their decades-old cross honoring World War I-dead is on private property and thus exempt from the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. Salazar v. Buono, __ U.S. _ (April 28, 2010). The composition of the Supreme Court's voters cannot determine whether I agree with an opinion from the Court. I will read the opinion first, not only for its First Amendment discussion -- including tensions between the Establishment Clause and the First Amendment's free speech clause -- but also for its discussion about circumstances that permit courts to revisit whether to keep permanent injunctions permanent, and about standing to sue the government for alleged civil liberties violations that are not targeted specifically at the suing party.
Monday, December 7. 2009
Robert L. Ord owns a Virginia-based private security company. As the D.C. Circuit tells it: "In 2007, the Virginia Circuit Court of Orange County appointed appellant Robert Ord a Special Conservator of the Peace (SCOP). That order authorized Ord to carry firearms while acting in the course of his duties. It also designated him a 'Qualified Law Enforcement Officer' with respect to certain provisions of Virginia and federal law, including the federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004. Known as LEOSA, that statute allows officers to carry concealed firearms notwithstanding contrary state law. See 18 U.S.C. § 926B." Ord v. D.C., _ F.3d _ (D.C. Cir., Dec. 4, 2009). Perhaps still smarting over its loss in the landmark Second Amendment case of District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) -- or perhaps, as a possibility suggested by Ord, the D.C. government wanted to protect off-duty police officers' corner of the lucrative private armed security market -- the D.C. Attorney General's Office officials vacillated between saying the OAG would not go forward on an arrest warrant for violating the D.C. law against carrying a firearm without a license, then saying a few hours later that it might, and then finally declaring a nolle prosequi (a dismissal without prejudice to recharging the alleged crime) shortly before a hearing on Ord's motion to quash the arrest warrant. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Ord's lawsuit filed to avert further enforcement action and to collect damages, treating "his suit as a preenforcement challenge and, finding that [Ord] failed to demonstrate that he faces a genuine and imminent risk of prosecution, dismissed it for lack of standing." Subsequent to the District Court's dismissal, the D.C. Circuit in Ord said: The District of Columbia’s position with regard to Ord’s standing has evolved during this litigation. In the district court, it “ma[de] much ado about the fact that the Office of the Attorney General declared a nolle prosequi of the Information in support of the warrant” and insisted that this action negated any inference of a credible and imminent threat of future prosecution. Ord, 573 F. Supp. 2d at 93. On appeal, however, the District of Columbia now agrees with Ord that “his showing regarding the likelihood that [future] prosecution [will] occur [is] sufficient” because “Ord’s allegations that the District applied for an arrest warrant against him [are] sufficient to show . . . a special priority.” Appellee’s Br. 24. Ruling 2-1, Ord found Ord has standing to sue, saying: Given the District of Columbia’s concession, the previous arrest warrant, Ord’s claims of bad faith, and the arrests of Falken employees, Ord’s allegations support his standing under Navegar. Indeed, Ord’s position is quite similar to that of the Navegar plaintiffs whose products the statute banned by name. Just as the statute’s identification of certain weapons by name evidenced “a high priority” on prosecuting the companies that produced those weapons, the warrant for Ord’s arrest reveals that the District of Columbia has already targeted him for prosecution, and its concession signals that it expects to prosecute him in the future. In addition, Ord’s allegation that the MPD remains determined to drive his company from the city suggests that the District of Columbia places a special priority on enforcing the laws against him. Ord also found that Ord has standing to bring his damages claim: This issue is easy. The District does not challenge Ord’s standing to bring his damages claim, and for good reason. To begin with, Ord has plainly alleged injury in fact. According to his complaint, an MPD officer caused a warrant to issue for Ord’s arrest on the basis of a false affidavit and without probable cause, forcing him to abandon lucrative armed security contracts within the District of Columbia. Ord has also sufficiently alleged causation: the arrest warrant prevented him from entering D.C., which in turn required him to abandon the contracts. Finally, an award of damages would obviously redress his injuries. On appeal, Ord was represented by Matt LeFande, whose blog -- not updated for over a year -- I have listed in my blogroll's prosecutor and law enforcement category, based on my understanding, at the time of linking to him, that he was a volunteer reserve officer with the D.C. police. His current biography seems to say he no longer volunteers with the D.C. police, which makes me inclined to remove him from my blogroll, because my only reason for listing a blog that has so few updates is that I know of few blogroll-worthy prosecutor and police blogs that regularly update. On Ord's amicus side was -- apparently jointly -- the Second Amendment Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union of the National Capital Area -- represented by lawyers Alan Gura and Art Spitzer. Born in 1971, Alan Gura successfully argued Heller in the Supreme Court. Longtime local ACLU legal director Art Spitzer -- whom I have known for seventeen years -- is a smart and very able advocate. Ord reaches a good result that goes beyond Second Amendment issues to protecting people against the harassment and damage of threatened prosecution.
Friday, November 13. 2009
Image from the Government Printing Office's website. On November 12, 2009, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals issued its most recent ruling on the Second Amendment, as well as on the Fourth Amendment. Plummer v. U.S.. _ A.2d _ (Nov. 12, 2009). Plummer refused Fourth Amendment relief where the defendant did not submit to police with their guns drawn. Plummer addresses anonymous tips, which rear their ugly heads in my cases from time to time: Furthermore, “‘an anonymous tip alone seldom demonstrates the informant’s basis of knowledge or veracity, . . .’ [but] there are situations in which an anonymous tip, suitably corroborated, exhibits ‘sufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make the investigatory stop.’” J.L., supra, 529 U.S. at 270 (quoting Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 329, 327 (1990)). A tip may provide “predictive information” that is sufficiently reliable “to identify a determinate person,” but the tip must also be “reliable in its assertion of illegality.” Id. at 271-72 (referencing 4 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 9.4 (h) (3d ed. 1996)). Plummer. Beyond the Fourth Amendment, Plummer remanded the case to the trial court "with instructions to hold a hearing to determine whether Mr. Plummer would have satisfied the statutory requirements in D.C. Code § 7-2502.03," which statute provides eligibility criteria for being permitted to possess a handgun and ammunition in the District of Columbia. Plummer. Jon Katz.
Monday, November 2. 2009
Image from the Government Printing Office's website. Last Friday, Maryland’s intermediate appellate court treated the Supreme Court's Heller opinion as doing nothing to change the Maryland Court of Special Appeals' 2005 ruling that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. Williams v. Maryland, __ Md. App. _ (Oct. 30, 2009). Williams acknowledged that a three-judge Ninth Circuit federal panel held that “the right to bear arms was a fundamental right warranting substantive due process protection through the Fourteenth Amendment,” but that the en banc Ninth Circuit ordered that the opinion not be cited for precedential value, and deferred an en banc ruling pending the Supreme Court’s disposition of three similar cases. Williams also reads the Second and Seventh federal circuits as finding no application of the Second Amendment to the states post-Heller, District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008), and concludes: "Until the Supreme Court rules definitively on incorporation of the Second Amendment, we must assume, without deciding, that it has not been incorporated." In any event, Williams finds that even if the Second Amendment applied to the states, that would not disturb its affirmance of appellant's conviction for possessing a handgun outside of his home. Jon Katz
Sunday, October 19. 2008
For many years, I have been defending about as many criminal cases in Virginia as in Maryland. In Virginia, I defend more criminal cases in Fairfax County than anywhere else in the commonwealth. Most of the counties where I practice in Virginia are a close drive to my office and home. However, many potential and actual Virginia clients would prefer the convenience of my having a Virginia office. Furthermore, some are on pretrial release that confines them to Virginia. Consequently, I researched shared office suite options, and selected a good one with full-time reception service in a nice office building with free parking in Tysons Corner in Fairfax County, Virginia. My Silver Spring, Maryland, office will continue to be my principal office. Here is the location of my new Virginia office: Jon Katz, P.C., 1420 Spring Hill Road, Suite 600, Tysons Corner/ McLean, Fairfax County, Virginia 22102, (703) 917-6626. Speaking of Virginia law practice, I understand that some D.C.-licensed lawyers toy with the idea of obtaining nothing more than a Virginia address in an effort to obtain a Virginia bar license without taking the Virginia bar exam. However, my reading of the governing legal provisions is that such reciprocity is only available to those who will be practicing full-time in Virginia. Therefore, I went to the trouble of preparing for and taking the Virginia bar exam twelve years ago, simultaneously handling a full trial litigation docket. After a long day of litigation work, I would plow through my home study course's audiotapes and workbooks, do practice essays that were evaluated by the course's owner and director, and then go back to work the next day. I am happy I went to the trouble of taking and passing the Virginia bar the exam. I get many interesting cases and clients there. Unfortunately, Virginia's criminal justice system overall is the most draconian of all three states where I practice. In Virginia, for instance, Jencks material (statements of opposing witnesses) is generally not available in criminal cases; limited discovery is available for criminal cases, particularly in District Court; and a criminal defendant facing no more than one year in jail is forced to pursue a non-jury trial, and, only if convicted may the defendant then appeal for a jury trial de novo after such a conviction and sentencing. Handgun law is one area where Virginia criminal law is more favorable than the law in neighboring Maryland and the District of Columbia; Virginia breathes more life into the Second Amendment than the other two states. Also, Virginia law permits jury voir dire, which is tough to obtain in Maryland and Washington, D.C. Jon Katz.
Tuesday, July 1. 2008
Supreme Court spiral staircase. Generally, it is critical to elect Barack Obama to have less damage done to the Constitution by new federal judicial appointees than the damage that will be wreaked by McCain appointees in such areas as the death penalty, criminal defendants' rights, immigrants' rights, reproductive rights, and free expression. However, one area where McCain appointees likely will do no worse or possibly better than Obama appointees is in an area generally more near and dear to Republicans' hearts than Democrats': defining the reach of Second Amendment rights. In fact, four justices whom I have never wanted on the Supreme Court were in the majority in last Thursday's Heller decision confirming that the right to bear arms is an individual right rather than merely a collective right. Said justices all are appointees of Reagan, Bush I and Bush II: Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts (C.J.). The fifth justice in the Heller majority is Reagan-appointed Justice Kennedy. I still recommend Obama as the lesser of the evils as compared to McCain, including for juducual appointments, even though McCain's appointees are more likely to interpret Heller more ezpansively than Obama's appointees. For such prosecutions as possessing firearms in the course of a drug felony, though, Republican appointees are unlikely to be any more favorable to defendants than Democratic appointees. Jon Katz.
Monday, June 30. 2008
Image from the Government Printing Office's website. As I walked to the District of Columbia Superior Court last Thursday, I felt a huge air of glee from a fellow criminal defense lawyer walking the opposite way. "Justice is coming at 10:00 a.m.," he exulted. Later that morning, in the courthouse, another colleague who defends many clients in handgun cases happily told me that the Supreme Court that morning had affirmed the United States Court of Appeals ruling invalidating the District of Columbia's virtual blanket ban on the possession of an operable handgun in one's home. Longtime Underdog readers know I agree with the result in the Supreme Court. District of Columbia v. Heller, __ U.S. _ (June 26, 2008).
As to Heller's effect beyond handgun possession in one's home, I posted my following view on a local criminal defense lawyer's listserv: Several listserv members suggest that Heller invalidates D.C. Code § 22-4504 concerning possessing unregistered firearms and unregistered ammunition. I hope that would be the case. However, doesn't Heller only automatically invalidate prosecutions for possessing handguns in one's home, and give the most immediate ammunition to attack prosecutions for transporting handguns between the gun shop, the home, the repair shop, and the shooting range, when all such activities are for the purpose of having a safely and properly operated handgun in one's home? After all, Heller’s majority opinion says ‘We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals’ after the court’s summation paragraph (three paragraphs from the end) proclaims: "In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home." D.C. v. Heller, _ U.S. _ (June 26, 2008) (emphasis added). Because the Supreme Court affirms the judgment of the Court of Appeals, here is what the Court of Appeals concluded: "For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is reversed and the case is remanded. Since there are no material questions of fact in dispute, the district court is ordered to grant summary judgment to Heller consistent with the prayer for relief contained in appellants' complaint." Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370, 401 (D.C. Cir. 2007), affirmed sub nom District of Columbia v. Heller, __ U.S. _ (2008). What, then, did the original summary judgment motion seek? "Appellants, six residents of the District, challenge D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4), which generally bars the registration of handguns (with an exception for retired D.C. police officers); D.C. Code § 22-4504, which prohibits carrying a pistol without a license, insofar as that provision would prevent a registrant from moving a gun from one room to another within his or her home; and D.C. Code § 7-2507.02, requiring that all lawfully owned firearms be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device." Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d at 373 (emphasis added). Consequently, although Heller provides language to support providing Second Amendment rights beyond the home, I think the case only automatically invalidates prosecutions for possessing handguns in one's home, and gives the most immediate ammunition to attack prosecutions for transporting handguns between the gun shop, the home, the repair shop, and the shooting range, when all such activities are for the purpose of having a safely and properly operated handgun in one's home. Jon Katz.
Friday, January 4. 2008
Image from National Drug Intelligence Center's site. The District of Columbia government got it right -- and so did Congress when it got out of the way -- in approving and funding a needle exchange program to reduce the spread of HIV by illegal drug users who would otherwise share needles with which to inject themselves. The D.C. government got it wrong when it gutted the Second Amendment long ago to even prohibit possessing a handgun in one's home. (As much as I recommend that people voluntarily disarm and remain unarmed, the Second Amendment means nothing if the government prohibits gun ownership.) In the same day, January 3, the Washington Post reported as follows on both of the above topics: D.C.'s needle exchange program is in full swing. As the Post reports: "The District will invest $650,000 in needle exchange programs to combat the spread of HIV-AIDS in the wake of Congress's decision to end a ban on the city's use of public money for such efforts, D.C. officials said yesterday." In the same week, the D.C. government, through acting D.C. attorney general Peter Nickles (see Underdog's posting of the recent resignation of former attorney general Linda Singer) fired Alan Morrison as the city's lead advocate to argue to the Supreme Court to reinstate D.C.'s gun ban. Replacing Morrison is former Clinton acting solicitor general Walter E. Dellinger. Seeing that I want D.C. to lose in the Supreme Court, I have no problem with this probably silly midstream shakeup, which possibly is more about attorney general Peter Nickles wishing to have a Mayor Fenty/Peter Nickles loyalist than to assure having the best advocate appear before the Supreme Court. However, were I still a D.C. resident, I would wonder if such a shakeup were bringing unnecessarily extra financial expenses to the D.C. treasury. Curiously, both acting attorney general Nickles and gun ban lead advocate Dellinger hail from big establishment D.C. law firms. On the other hand, the now-gone D.C. attorney general Linda Singer and fired gun ban advocate Morrison hail from public interest organizations, with Linda Singer as former executive director of the Appleseed Foundation, and with Morrison having spent over three decades at Public Citizen. Morrison is a seasoned Supreme Court advocate, and has a knack for making friends with those whose politics he disagrees with, including Justice Scalia, who is a favorite for barbs from so-called progressives. As much as public interest organizations and big D.C. law firms interact very much (with the public interest groups providing interesting cases for the firms to attract and retain lawyers to get pro bono time), I wonder how much Nickles felt that Morrison was a wild card, not having subscribed to using his intellect at a corporate law firm. In any event, kudos to the D.C. government for supporting safe and legal needle exchanges. As to the gun ban case, I look forward to the Supreme Court's inserting teeth into the Second Amendment. Jon Katz. ADDENDUM: By supporting needle exchange programs, I do not mean at all to glorify intravenous drug use. This came all the more to light a few years ago as I took a wrong walking turn in Vancouver's Chinatown to visit a huge Buddhist temple, only to find myself walking towards an open-air heroin shooting gallery, which I assumed was a government-sanctioned location for shooting up, or perhaps just a needle exchange location. Right in front of me was a crazed-looking man who stabbed a syringe into his palm. I got out of there as soon as I could, lest he then try to stab me, whether in an attempt to rob me or just from being crazed. So, if you go to Vancouver's Chinatown, watch out for this area, which I think is right next to a big library.
Thursday, December 13. 2007
 Camera image from U.S. Geological Survey website. On Monday, December 17, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. EST, the "American Dream" show (available on cable television) will spend about an hour interviewing me (in Arab Television Network's Washington, DC, studio) and specialists in sociology and human behavior about the tragic (they all are tragic) December 6, 2007, mall shootings in Nebraska. The producers already know from my initial appearance on the program in October 2007 (detailed here and here) about my support of strong protection for gun possession rights unless and until the Second Amendment is amended. I believe that weakening Second Amendment rights disserves robust protection of First Amendment rights. (Compare: (1) "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" (the First Amendment); and (2) "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" (the Second Amendment).) I do not know the extent to which other aspects of the criminal law will be discussed on the program. The shooter killed himself, so I suppose that any discussion on the program about criminal law will be more relevant to other cases and about efforts at preventing repeats of such tragedies. I will also be ready to discuss how -- aside from mental illness that is hard to treat -- violence often arises from the strong disconnect, disenfranchisement, and powerlessness that so many people feel in American society. Plenty of people feel that violence in the entertainment and news media plays a substantial role in encouraging real-life violence, but I tend to feel that the feelings of disconnect are at the heart of the matter. We all can reduce the feelings of disconnect by reaching out to others, one-by-one, from such simple enough deeds as letting the other driver pass in front of us, to inviting a neighbor for dinner, to being there patiently to listen to a person who needs to be heard or who needs just not to be alone, and the list goes on. The show will air on Press TV. Press TV's website says: "PRESS TV is the first international Iran-based news network to broadcast in English on a round-the-clock schedule. Our Tehran-based headquarters is staffed by media professionals from around the world. PRESS TV has an extensive network of bureaus located in the world’s most strategic places." The International Herald Tribune reports that the station launched in mid-2007. Other reports confirm that Press TV is at least partially-funded by the Iranian government. An article on IndyMedia.org quotes Amir Afra -- who produces and hosts Press TV's "Fine Print" program -- as saying: "We're state-funded, not state-governed... We are like so many non-governmental organizations that receive state funds. We have our own editorial board." I did not know about the Iranian government funding aspect of this program until after I appeared on the show the last time. This time around, I told the person inviting me on the show for December 13 that I accepted the invitation so long as I will not be censored, which she said I will not. If it were only so easy to know something is so just because someone says it is so. Then again, why would the Iranian government wish to censor information and opinions about social ills in the United States? Jon Katz.
Monday, October 22. 2007
Image from the Government Printing Office's website. This follows up on my October 19 blog entry about my then-upcoming panel interview for that evening about the pros and cons of gun control, including my discovering only after the interview about the program's links to Press TV, which is at least partially funded by the Iranian government. This televised panel discussion and debate provided me an opportunity to hear the views of others dealing with this topic all the time, and to get my own views out to the public, not only about my insistence that we not be disingenuous to the Second Amendment nor to any other parts of the Constitution, but also to let viewers know that innocent people often get dragnetted into gun arrests (the same thing happens with drug arrests); that many people live in states that permit carrying a handgun in one's car, only to be arrested (sometimes on charges of speeding or other moving violations) in another state that does not permit such activity, without knowing that in advance; and that the mandatory minimum sentences for possessing a handgun in relation to a drug felony (even if the drug felony is possession with intent to distribute a few ounces of marijuana, which I strongly believe should be legalized) are unjust. On the four-person panel were two firm gun control advocates, a gun ownership/use advocate whose gun rights views are at times firmer than those of the executive director of the National Rifle Association, and myself, who says that the Second Amendment needs to be amended before the federal, state and local governments are permitted to limit firearm possession close to the current level of limitations. The two gun control advocates consisted of a gentleman whose son was murdered with a handgun in the District of Columbia, and a fellow local National Lawyers Guild member who has been supporting Brady bill types of legislation. Asked for my thoughts about American society's rampant violence, I responded that the answer goes well beyond the widespread availability of handguns. For one thing, when deprived of firearms, people wishing to commit violence have such alternative options as knives and explosives made from material that is easily obtained (e.g., Molotov cocktails). I said that violence often happens because of societal desensitization about violence and feelings of disconnect in society. I got nods of agreement from the pro-gun control panelists when I said that America's constant warmongering helps desensitize people about violence. I also pointed out that Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh served in the military during the first Iraq war in 1991. The gun rights panelist insisted the current Gulf War was justified for having removed a "sadistic dictator." Further discussing the causes of violence in America, I pointed out the frontier mentality that still overly pervades American society, with too many people having an attitude of "Hooray for me. To hell with you." I said that everyone needs to reach out to everyone else, starting with the people living right next door to us. I also got nods of agreement from the pro-gun control panelists when I pointed out that desensitization about violence also arises from too many police officers being too trigger happy with their tasers and guns. At the conclusion of the taping, I went over to the man whose son was murdered, and told him I was sorry that his son had been killed. He thanked me and gave me a hug, rather than shunning me for my views. From the time I was invited to this interview, I started trying to make sense of what the Arab Television Network is all about, this being the television station that conducted the interview. It appears that the station is too new to have any useful Google coverage. The station is based in Denmark, and its website has limited information. One of the station's employees expects the interview will soon be uploaded to PressTV.com (and possibly portions on YouTube) under the section for the "American Dream" program that handled the interview. Press TV's website says: "PRESS TV is the first international Iran-based news network to broadcast in English on a round-the-clock schedule. Our Tehran-based headquarters is staffed by media professionals from around the world. PRESS TV has an extensive network of bureaus located in the world’s most strategic places." The International Herald Tribune reports that the station launched just over three months ago. Other reports confirm that Press TV is at least partially-funded by the Iranian government. An article on IndyMedia.org quotes Amir Afra -- who produces and hosts Press TV's "Fine Print" program -- as saying: "We're state-funded, not state-governed... We are like so many non-governmental organizations that receive state funds. We have our own editorial board." A host of "American Dream" (different from the host when I appeared) is Mark Levine, who claims he is not being censored on the show, and who confirms the show's affiliation with Press TV. Consequently, I wonder why the woman who invited me to the panel interview characterized it as an interview by Arab Television Network rather than an interview for a show running on Press TV. In any event, an interviewee always runs the risk that an unfamiliar interviewing news organization will have an agenda opposite that of the interviewee. Would I still have appeared on this program had I known its connections with Press TV? I probably would have wanted to dig into what Press TV is all about before making a final decision. Even now I do not have enough information about the extent to which the station is as independent as it claims from the Iranian government. Jon Katz. ADDENDUM: On December 13, I accepted an invitation to return to the same "American Dream" program, this time about the December 6, 2007, mall shootings in Nebraska. The person inviting me, from ATV, told me that she always tells interviewees that the program broadcasts on Press TV. Therefore, if I mis-heard about Press TV when invited for the above-described October 19 "American Dream" appearance, I apologize about my original comments about that in the above blog entry. Whether or not I misheard, now I know the nature of Press TV, and told the person inviting me on the show for December 13 that I accepted the invitation so long as I will not be censored, which she said I will not. If it were only so easy to know something is so just because someone says it is so.
Friday, October 19. 2007
Camera image from U.S. Geological Survey website. This evening, October 19, 2007, at 8:00 p.m. EST, Arab Television Network (available on cable television) will spend about an hour interviewing me (in ATN's Washington, DC, studio) and a panel of other interviewees who are pro and con on gun rights. I have blogged several times about my support of strong protection for gun possession rights unless and until the Second Amendment is amended. I believe that weakening Second Amendment rights disserves robust protection of First Amendment rights. (Compare: (1) "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" (the First Amendment); and (2) "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" (the Second Amendment).) Of course, I worship at the altar of the First Amendment. Apparently the interview will broadcast live, and is available on cable television, for those receiving the Arab Television Network on their cable television plans. Have a great weekend. Jon Katz.
Wednesday, October 10. 2007
Cesar Chavez: A champion for the empowerment of workers and immigrants. In 2004, I went to the National Rifle Association annual meeting in Pittsburgh, to learn more about modern-day firearms in order to strengthen my ability successfully to defend criminal gun cases, and also to get a better handle on the realities of my support for a Second Amendment with teeth (believing that being disingenuous to enforcing Second Amendment rights -- unless and until the Second Amendment is amended --disserves robust protection of First Amendment rights. (Compare: (1) "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" (the First Amendment); and (2) "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" (the Second Amendment).) The mantra at the NRA meeting, though, was scary: throw money at Second Amendment-supporting politicians even if they urinate on the rest of the Constitution; and "there would not have been a Nazi Germany or Soviet Union if people had the right to bear arms." Another NRA mantra is supporting hunting, so that people may live off the land and enjoy the great outdoors (which I, as a strict vegetarian do without fishing, hunting or eating animals). It was too much for me to deal with; I resigned my NRA membership, which membership was necessary to attend the annual NRA convention, which had more than a football-sized display area of the latest handguns, rifles, and weaponry accessories. At the NRA conference, some people asked me what it was like to live in the People's Republic of Maryland, so named for Maryland being inhospitable to the Second Amendment, as opposed to Virginia, where in some parts of the state people are permitted to pack a concealed pistol while walking down the street, which can give all the more cause for pause about looking anyone cross-eyed in the former cradle of the Confederacy. Of course, worse than Maryland, District of Columbia statutory law does not even permit gun ownership at home, but D.C.'s highest federal court this year ruled such crabbed laws to be in violation of the Second Amendment. By now, I have lived in all three Capital Beltway jurisdictions. I started in Arlington, Virginia, for a year, at a point just a mile from Georgetown in Washington, D.C. I hurled at the thought of living in a state that so actively executes people. I moved to Washington, D.C., and stayed there for fifteen years. For people living in the area, the city has its lure; however, taxation without representation did not sit well with me; on the other hand, at least D.C does not have the death penalty (that's reserved for the federal courts). In 2002, I moved not only to Maryland, but to Montgomery County, which in many ways is a people's republic within a people's republic. On the other hand, all three places have miserable histories of racial segregation and racial injustice. Overall, of the areas surrounding the Capital Beltway -- where I need to live for easy access to the many courts where I practice -- I prefer living in Maryland, including some great nearby hiking, biking and boating places. Curiously, little did I know until speaking recently with a Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration employee that undocumented people are eligible for drivers' licenses in Maryland. (I should have talked about this with my law partner, Jay, who would have told me he already has handled such assistance.) I was under the misimpression that such a benefit was not available in Maryland, and possibly not elsewhere, either. As much as many Marylanders might want to eliminate such a benefit, I want the benefit to remain forever. Fortunately, many Maryland lawmakers agree. It appears that very few states make drivers' licenses available to undocumented people, and that the number is dwindling. Over a year ago, CASA of Maryland filed a lawsuit over the allegedly glacial pace for plenty of non-U.S. citizens to obtain driver's licenses; I do not know that status of that lawsuit yet. Lawmakers have identified how to continue making drivers' licenses available to undocumented people while still coming into compliance with the Big Brother Real ID Act, which is to make Real-ID-applicable drivers' licenses only available to those who request them (apparently such Big Brother "Real IDs" ultimately will be required to board planes and who knows what else (maybe I will find out that Maryland already has them, by the time I renew my driver's license in a few months). New York is another state that looks out not only for undocumented people in permitting them to have drivers' licenses, but as a result looks out for all drivers and passengers, whom are better served by having all drivers licensed, to assist in assuring at least minimally adequate driving skills by all drivers, and to assure that everyone is eligible to purchase car insurance. The next step will be to encourage people to get out of their cars often, so as to wake up and smell the jasmine flowers, and to help reduce the environmental degradation from driving. Meanwhile, welcome to Maryland, everyone who is not eligible to get licensed in neighboring jurisdictions. Jon Katz.
Sunday, June 3. 2007
Image from the Government Printing Office's website. Last March, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned the District's blanket handgun ban. (See my further discussion here). On May 8, 2007, the Court of Appeals denied a rehearing or reconsideration of the case before the full court. Since then, on May 24, 2007, the D.C. Circuit granted the District of Columbia's May 15, 2007, unopposed motion to stay the issuance of its mandate in the case, pending the District of Columbia's possible filing of a certiorari petition for the Supreme Court to review the case. The mandate will finalize and effectuate the court's opinion overturning the District of Columbia's blanket handgun ban. The D.C. Circuit overturned the District of Columbia's handgun ban by a 2-1 decision, with Judges Silberman and Griffith in the majority, and Judge Henderson dissenting. The same three judges unanimously granted the District of Columbia's unopposed motion to stay the issuance of its mandate in the case. Senior Circuit Judge Silberman added his own two cents to the granting of the stay motion as follows: "Although the District’s motion for stay only indicates it 'may' petition for certiorari, since appellants did not object, I assume it is understood that the District intends to petition for review in the Supreme Court. If it did not so intend, in my view, it would be inappropriate for it to have sought the stay. Boim v. Quranic Literacy Institute, 297 F.3d 542, 543-44 (7th Cir. 2002) (Rovner, J.)." Thanks to SCOTUS for covering the mandate stay issue in this case that may lead the Supreme Court to address individual Second Amendment rights more directly than ever before. Jon Katz.
Monday, May 14. 2007
Image from the Government Printing Office's website. Last March, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned the District's blanket handgun ban. (See my further discussion here). On May 8, the Court of Appeals denied a rehearing or reconsideration of the case before the full court. Although the Washington Post's editorial page supports an appeal to the Supreme Court, the same editorial acknowledges that the Supreme Court last ruled on Second Amendment rights over sixty-five years ago, and this piece elsewhere in the Post addresses the significant alignment of Supreme Court justices who might be favorable to those asserting an individual's Second Amendment right to keep guns at home. Moreover, if the Supreme Court accepts this case for review, the President, through the Solicitor General, will get argument time, so it remains to be seen whether any Supreme Court hearing takes place when the White House is still with Bush II, who seems favorable to applying the Second Amendment to individuals, or if a new president is in office by then. With the next inauguration date twenty months off, it is a good bet that Bush II will get to argue if the Supreme Court grants an appeal. If the Supreme Court accepts an appeal in this case, will it address head-on the extent to which the Second Amendment applies to individuals? I expect that if the Supreme Court declares any Second Amendment rights for individuals, that the Court might limit that right to such narrow areas as possessing guns at home, and will leave the remainder of that right for the lower courts to address. By the way, I am far from the only non-NRA member and Bush II loather who interprets the Second Amendment to apply to individuals. Jon Katz
|
