On November 2, an elk hunter in Oregon reported that he was forced to shoot a wolf in self-defense. The hunter, whose name has not been released, was stalking elk in the eastern part of the state, near Seneca, when a wolf approached him. The animal came out from the woods in front of him at 30 yards and wouldn’t stop coming toward him. After yelling at the wolf and waving his arms in an effort to scare it off, the hunter said he had to shoot it.
The incident is still under investigation, but authorities say that the man self-reported shooting the animal. “Preliminary investigation revealed the hunter acted reasonably in shooting the wolf for personal safety,” the Oregon State Police (OSP) said in a press release. “The hunter stated he feared for his safety and fired one round, striking the wolf and killing it instantly.” Officials found that the man was only 18 yards from the wolf when he fired.
I seem to remember something about mankind being placed in dominion over the animals. Yes, I know I read that somewhere.
Throughout her colloquy with the justices on behalf of the Biden administration, Prelogar spoke to the justices using their own words, missing no opportunity to argue that “historical tradition” actually favors her argument in the case.
For example, when Chief Justice John Roberts asked whether “irresponsible” or “dangerous” are too vague or subjective to be persuasive, Prelogar reminded him that she was not using the words in their colloquial sense. Rather, Prelogar argued, “history and tradition” provide a rich context for what the terms mean.
“Irresponsible” corresponds only to precedent directly related to the specific danger of gun possession, Prelogar explained. She offered that “irresponsible” has historically been used to distinguish a person who may not be legally culpable for reasons of age or mental disability, but in whose hands a firearms would present a particular danger.
The history and tradition of the word “dangerous” also supports labeling a domestic abuser as such, she continued.
“So there’s no daylight at all then between “not responsible” and “dangerous,” pressed Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
An unwavering Prelogar answered, again quoting the justices’ own words: “Yes, that’s what history and tradition said.” She expounded, telling Kavanaugh that in the past, the Supreme Court itself has consistently interpreted those terms in just the way the Biden administration urges it to do now.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the conversation to raise an interpretive question of her own.
“So it’s not a synonym for ‘virtue,’” queried Barrett about the term “responsible.”
Prelogar bluntly rejected Barrett’s suggestion and said the term is clearly linked to dangerousness with firearms, and not to amorphous concepts of responsibility.
In addition to figuratively meeting the conservative justices where they were on the matter of “historical tradition,” Prelogar also offered an alternative take on the framework set out by Thomas in Bruen. Throughout her argument, the solicitor general argued that history and tradition are perhaps not the stalwart beacons of freedom the conservative majority has held them up to be.
Prelogar made a glaring point, beginning with Thomas as her primary audience: A look into the nation’s history and tradition, she argued, reveals that the Second Amendment was meant not to apply to entire groups of people, and slaves and Native Americans were excluded. The theme reemerged several times throughout the nearly two hours of oral arguments. In the founding era, such categories of people were not considered to be “among the people protected by the Second Amendment,” and generally stripped of other rights as well, Prelogar contextualized, denouncing the inequality as “odious.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson later suggested, “Is there a flaw with history and tradition? Are we only considering history of some of the people?”
Prelogar also cleverly worked in a key debate point about “historical tradition” in a round of questions from Thomas. When the conservative justice, often known for skepticism about overreaching administrative power, asked Prelogar whether she would change her position if Rahimi had been the subject of an administrative order, as opposed to a civil order, Prelogar again used some of the justice’s own logic in her argument. She responded that an administrative determination would be different, but that more modern American law supports the distinction — as contrasted with “historical” (or English) legal principles.
When Jackson questioned Prelogar, she raised yet another key point with respect to the role of “historical tradition” in the context of gun rights for domestic abusers. The justice, making a key point to the conservative majority via question to Prelogar, noted that historically, men — including domestic abusers — were not perceived as “dangerous” from a standpoint of disarmament.
“Unwavering.” “Bluntly.” “Cleverly.” Ms. Nanos is engaging in some hero worship and hopeful projection here. That’s not at all what happened in the Rahimi arguments. I think she fails to grok the gravity of what happened during the arguments and Q&A.
I wanted to let the dust settle on this before I weighed in. As for my opinion, briefly, I agree with the Fifth Circuit’s ruling on this. There was nothing incomplete or wrong with it. In fact, it correctly concludes that oftentimes, the claimed offended party is the one who is being placed in a position of increased danger if in fact the claims of abuse or danger are correct and truthful, since many times restraining orders of the kind dealt with in Rahimi apply to both parties. She can’t have a weapon of any kind either. The Fifth Circuit brought that very point up.
But here we are at the supreme court hearing arguments, so it’s better to focus on what happened. Ms. Nanos is likely very wrong about where this will go. Ms. Prelogar, in invoking history and tradition, further endorsed the Heller/Bruen methodology of text first, burden being placed on the government if a case “touches fingers” with the second amendment, and then appeal to the laws at the time of the founding. It may be true that there were such laws in place at the time of the founding – and Rahimi may lose his case on the question of facial unconstitutionality of the statute.
But that’s not even nearly all that happened. She constantly conflated the notions of “dangerous” and “irresponsible,” and repeatedly contradicted herself in her answers. In fact, questions from Roberts and Barrett focused on that very issue, with both of them repeating the question to make sure of her answer (likely speaking to fellow justices in the process). Ms. Prelogar lost both Barrett and Roberts during the arguments as can he detected from the questions. If the DOJ had focused on the facial constitutionality of the statue in question, she would have won and that would be the end of it.
As it currently stands, the supreme court is much more likely to make it clear in their ruling that someone who has been deemed “irresponsible” doesn’t fall under any such statute. And in fact, it makes them much more likely to take up the Range v. Garland case just to make it clear that non-violent felons (and other “irresponsible” people) don’t lose their rights.
The state would love nothing better than to be able to remove second amendment rights of anyone they deem to be irresponsible, e.g., social media bad words, don’t like vaccine mandates, don’t like forcible mask mandates, don’t like tyrannical governments, etc., well then, too bad for you but you lose your rights. That’s what Ms. Prelogar was arguing for. She didn’t get it. No decision which lacks the support of Roberts and Barrett will prevail.
If you don’t believe me, listen to Mark Smith, who analyzes the case better than I can. Right after that, listen to Langley Outdoors Academy where I think he does the best breakdown of the Q&A of anyone I’ve heard. So, listen to Mark for the legal analysis, and Langley for an expose of the Q&A on which Mark’s analysis is based. Then you might want to watch Washington Gun Law where his analysis basically agrees with Mark’s. None of this dovetails with Ms. Nanos’ presentation, but what do you expect from a rag like Law & Crime?
This week, as North America’s wildlife professionals gather in Louisville, Kentucky, for the annual meetings of The Wildlife Society, the question of who calls the shots in wildlife management will be a hot topic.
Last year’s Wildlife Society annual meeting, in Spokane, was defined by what some in the wildlife-management profession characterized as a takeover by animal-rights activists who generally feel left out of traditional wildlife management.
They’re not entirely wrong. Most state wildlife agencies are funded mainly by hunters, either through license sales or pass-through revenue from taxes on guns, bows, and ammunition. And while state fish and game departments have wide authority to manage butterflies, minnows, and songbirds, most manage primarily for catchable fish and huntable game.
The wildlife activists, who want state agencies to de-emphasize hunting and fishing in favor of more tolerance for carnivores and non-game species, are not politely asking to be included, as last year’s Wildlife Society meeting indicated. In many states, they’re using the political process to win gubernatorial appointments to fish and game commissions. Washington, where these animal-rights advocates now hold a majority of commission seats, has become the leading indicator of a transition away from agencies that cater mainly to hunters and anglers.
Colorado is quickly moving toward a similar model, with the recent appointment of three commissioners who represent constituents who may have never bought a hunting or fishing license.
I know someone from Colorado. I can vouch for what he’s saying about Colorado hunting.
This is just great. Now they’re coming for hunting!
All of you “We’re not voting our way out of this” guys may want to reconsider your position. I have long said that politics is warfare, plain and simple, just done in another way. If you don’t want to put in the effort to engage in the front lines of the warfare, when will you?
So, you may want to think about who your state is electing to the governor’s mansion. It matters. It matters to hunters and shooters.
I have nothing scientific to convey, just an anecdotal reference point. My local Academy Sports, which almost always has fairly inexpensive 5.56mm and .223 for sale, has no 5.56mm at all. They have very little .223, and what they do have is off-brand.
I’d be interested in your experience. It appears as if there is a rush to buy this caliber and that can be seen at the local level.
Nationally, if you do Ammoseek 5.56 you’ll see a lot of 5.56mm in the price range from 50 – 60 cents per round.
The whole thing was an abortion, promulgated by Donald Trump, and a violation of both the second amendment and the NFA. But I remain skeptical that they will overturn it because scary, scary, scary, ooooo, spooky …
LEGAL ALERT: The Supreme Court has granted the cert petitions in a lawsuit challenging the federal bump stock ban and a First Amendment lawsuit involving the NRA's speech. pic.twitter.com/lURyAGDFqL
1 year ago
