Source: Washington Post

A federal appeals court announced Friday that it will not revisit some of the District’s strict gun registration requirements that it struck down last fall.

A majority of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit voted against rehearing the case as a full panel. The decision upholds an earlier three-judge ruling that knocked down the city’s one-gun-per-month law, while upholding the government’s authority to issue gun regulations that promote public safety.

In denying the city’s request, Judge Patricia A. Millett — who has been mentioned as a potential nominee to replace Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia — sought to clarify her vote on a controversial topic. Millett wrote that the city had failed to fully show in court how some of its registration requirements — particularly a 15-question test on local gun laws — were sufficiently related to the government’s interest in promoting public safety.


Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/appeals-court-rejects-districts-request-to-revisit-dc-gun-control-case/2016/02/26/d9cee2de-dca4-11e5-891a-4ed04f4213e8_story.html

Source: Fox News

A sheriff’s deputy was killed and two others were injured Wednesday in a shootout shortly after serving an eviction notice in a rural area about 45 miles southwest of Denver, Colorado.

The suspect, who was reportedly identified as 58-year-old Martin Wirth, was pronounced dead at the scene. It was unclear if he was killed in the gunfire or if he took his own life, Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office spokesperson Jacki Kelley told the Denver Post.

* * *
Wirth ran for the state Senate in 2014 as a Green Party candidate but lost to an incumbent Republican. In a questionnaire to candidates by The Denver Post, Wirth wrote of corruption in the political system, his support for Colorado's marijuana laws and the plight of the poor.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/02/24/sheriffs-deputy-killed-2-deputies-injured-in-colorado-shootout.html?intcmp=hplnws

---

Reminded me of the Pennsylvania shooting a few months ago where a young girl was killed when her father pulled a weapon on a police officer serving an eviction notice. Sad event.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/22/health/sandy-hook-families-gun-lawsuit/

Sandy Hook is one of the saddest events I've seen but this lawsuit is simply misguided. The details are a bit hazy, but it appears the claim is that Remington acted negligently by marketing a firearm that was modeled on a military-use weapon, even though (1) there are critical differences between the weapon used in Sandy Hook and a military weapon and (2) the weapon used in Sandy Hook is similar to millions of other rifles on the market but just looks different. The judge almost certainly will throw this case out based on PLCAA, but even if that law didn't exist the premise of this lawsuit seeks really weak to me.

And he will certainly carry New Hampshire, will the Democratic party try to convince Biden (or even Warren) to enter the race? This is a crazy election year.

For posting a response questioning Bernie's vote on the bill protecting firearm manufacturers and dealers from suit. Never been blocked from a group before and feels sort of weird. The title of my post was "It was one bill." Here's the body of my post that was so outrageous it led me to being blocked:

"And it wasn't 'welfare.' Simple question - do you think Ford should be subject to lawsuit because a driver used a Ford truck to kill someone? Yes or no?"

Didn't get an answer but did get banned. Are AgnosticHerbert or Cha hosts of that group? I'm pretty amazed/appalled at the folks on DU who want to discourage the least bit of disagreement with their position. This is supposedly a progressive website, but as soon as you disagree with someone or ask the hard questions you get banned so that feelings don't get hurt?

Anyway, hoping that whomever the Dems nominate is the next president, and that the folks who want to restrict speech and limit (supposedly) opposing viewpoints are never in a position to actually make that decision.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/mcauliffe-to-restore-handgun-reciprocity-in-deal-with-republicans/2016/01/28/6f8c0240-c5d8-11e5-9693-933a4d31bcc8_story.html



Sounds like a win/win to me. Not sure why the controllers oppose it.

The party of FDR and JFK can't find a better candidate? I was talking to my wife tonight about the candidates and we agreed that we'll both probably vote for Bernie in the primary -- and certainly for whomever the Dems nominate in the GE -- but neither is particularly great. We are both lifelong Dems and big Bill Clinton and President Obama supporters. We were excited about President Obama but feel sort of "meh" about Hillary and Bernie. Hillary has a ton of baggage, including (whether her supporters agree or not) the email issue, which legitimately could lead to criminal charges, and even if not shows a serious lack of judgment. And Bernie is good on a lot of issues, but he's also a recent convert to the party, which makes me a bit hesitant, and he reminds me a bit of Dukakis.

The party was united behind Bill Clinton, and Obama excited a lot of people, but I'll vote for Hillary or Bernie simply because they are the nominee, not because either is a great candidate. At the same time, the Republicans will probably end up with Trump or Cruz as their nominee, perhaps two of the least qualified candidates (other than Palin) in a long time. Where are the great leaders who can unite this country and get something done?

Are there any Dems that aren't running that might be better? I'm not sold on Biden, but maybe Warren?

Including a bill passed in Virginia that allows concealed carry without a permit, also known as "constitutional carry."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/va-senate-panel-scraps-gun-control-bills-advances-gun-rights-measures/2016/01/20/db0e0484-bfc8-11e5-9443-7074c3645405_story.html?hpid=hp_local-news_vaguns-827pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

The committee approved several gun-rights bills, including one that would allow the state’s judges to carry concealed weapons without a permit. Another would allow retired law-
enforcement officers who annually meet the training and qualifications of active officers to carry concealed handguns in airports and schools.

The most far-reaching of the approved bills was Black’s, which would lift the permitting requirement for carrying a concealed weapon. The measure, which he referred to as “constitutional carry,” now goes to the full Senate for its consideration.

“It’s based on the idea that the Second Amendment is a constitutional right and that citizens have a right to carry firearms without permission of the government,” Black said. “It’s analogous to the First Amendment, where you don’t need a government permit to tell you what you can say and what you can’t.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/01/18/u-s-sheriffs-call-to-arms-urge-citizens-to-help-protect/?hpid=hp_rhp-more-top-stories_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory



Good advice. Unfortunately certain areas, like DC, make it virtually impossible to legally carry a firearm, preventing folks from protecting themselves and discouraging others from interfering in a crime, like when a young man was stabbed and beaten to death in front of numerous witnesses several months ago on a DC metro train.

Bryan Garner at the Atlantic wrote a legal piece about Cruz's eligibility that I found informative. Goes into the legalese and explains why it is "highly likely" the Supreme Court would determine Cruz is eligible. I don't really care one way or the other about whether Cruz is actually eligible, but I do find the history and the question interesting. Here's the conclusion from the piece:



http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/ted-cruz-eligibility-memo/424206/