Blog

On Friday and Saturday, while I was in Dallas for a conference, I paid a visit to the headquarters of LawProse.

Bryan Garner was kind enough to give me a tour of his office, which had an amazing collection of rare books. The walls are filled with photographs of Garner with various Supreme Court Justices, Circuit Judges, and other legal greats.

Garner is working on a book about the evolution of English grammar, and he showed me dozens of books from the 17th and 18th century–many first printings.

Garner also had a number of books previously owned by very famous people. The coolest item (that I saw, at least) was a book that was originally owned by John Jay–with his signature on the first page! Below, it says “First Chief Justice US Supreme Court.”

Here is Jay’s signature on The Treaty of Paris, along with John Adams and Benjamin Franklin.

Garner then showed me a book authored by legal great Jerome Frank. He told me that he had purchased it used for $25. I opened it up, and there was an inscription. “To Learned Hand. From Jerome Frank.” !!! Garner had purchased, inadvertently, a book from Jerome Frank to Learned Hand. !!!

I then joked to Garner that he needed a book from Cardozo to round out the New York great jurists. Garner reached to the next book on the stack, and what do you know, it was signed by Benjamin Cardozo. There were many more that I did not see.

Next, Garner took me to his rare book room, which was locked, and guarded by the Green Bag version of Cerberus–a gaggle of Supreme Court bobbleheads perpetually nodding in approval. The room had the musty scent of centuries of legal tomes. I dared not touch anything. He told me his oldest book is a dictionary from 1491.

In addition to his collection at his office, at his home home, he has 14,000 volumes, most of which are catalogued.

I asked Garner where he gained such a deep appreciation of language. He told me that when he was a teenager, a girl told him that she really admired his vocabulary. Garner took the message to heart, and started to keep a journal of words. Soon, the journal became several inches thick, and Garner recognized his calling. He still has the journal in his office today.

If you ever have the chance to meet Garner, or attend one of his great seminars, I would highly recommend it. In 2008, I attended a CLE Garner put on with Justice Scalia at the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C. It was very enjoyable, and quite memorable.

On my way out, Garner generously autographed, and gave me copies of his most recent books.

I think this may be a decent title for an Op-Ed I’m working about proposals to require insurance in order to own a firearm. My earlier posts are here.

Joe Biden’s advice to his wife of what to do if she is threatened is not only ridiculous, it is illegal.

However, Delaware law would likely make his suggestion illegal—unless the shots were fired in self-defense in a truly life-threatening situation.

A sergeant with the Wilmington, Del., police department explained to U.S. News that city residents are not allowed to fire guns on their property.

The sergeant, who preferred not to be identified, said that Wilmington residents are also not allowed to shoot trespassers. “On your property you can’t just shoot someone,” he said. “You have to really feel that your life is being threatened.”

Defense attorney John Garey—a former Delaware deputy attorney general—agreed, and added that several criminal charges might result if Jill Biden took her husband’s advice.

“In Delaware you have to be in fear of your life to use deadly force,” Garey said. “There’s nothing based on his scenario alone” indicating a reason to fear imminent death, he noted.

H/T Outside The Beltway

The Pacific Legal Foundation has sent requests under the California Public Records Act (the equivalent of FOIA) to the University of California Berkeley and University of California Davis, seeking information about how they use race and gender in making decisions about what articles to publish. You can download the requests here: [UC Davis PRA request; UC Berkeley PRA request.] The letters were sent to the Dean of the law schools, and carbon copied to the Editor in Chief and the Faculty Adviser.

As I noted in my previous post on this topic, these public institutions in California may have some issues with respect to Prop 209.

My previous posts are here, here, and here.

The 10th Circuit released an opinion holding that the Second Amendment does not protect the right to carry a concealed firearm outside the home. Here is the crux of the analysis.

With respect to Peterson’s claims against the Denver sheriff, we conclude that the carrying of concealed firearms is not protected by the Second Amendment or the Privileges and Immunities Clause. In Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897), the Supreme Court stated in dicta that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.” Id. at 281-82. More recently, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court noted that “the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues,” and explained that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions.” Id. at 626. In light of our nation’s extensive practice of restricting citizens’ freedom to carry firearms in a concealed manner, we hold that this activity does not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment’s protections.

We reach the same conclusion with respect to Peterson’s claim under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, U.S. Const. art IV, § 2, cl. 1, which is coterminous with his right to travel claim. As the Supreme Court explained in Supreme Court of Virginia v. Friedman, 487 U.S. 59 (1988), “it is only with respect to those ‘privileges’ and ‘immunities’ bearing on the vitality of the Nation as a single entity that a State must accord residents and nonresidents equal treatment.” Id. at 64-65 (quotations and citations omitted). Because the concealed carrying of firearms has been prohibited for much of our history, we conclude that this activity fails the Friedman test.

A concurring opinion found, even assuming that the right was protected by the Second Amendment, that the countervailing security interests would pass constitutional muster.

Even were concealed carry protected under the Second Amendment or the Privileges and Immunities Clause, I would yet affirm. I separately add this coda to advance an alternative basis for affirmance. Assuming that concealed carry were to be protected under the stated clauses, I nonetheless would remain in substantial agreement, on an alternative basis, with the analytical framework adopted by the district court. I would apply intermediate scrutiny to both claims to the extent concealed carry is protected, and would hold that the state has carried its burden under that standard. As part of its general public safety interest, Colorado has shown that ensuring CHL holders are qualified under state law is an important governmental objective. The state also proffered unrefuted evidence demonstrating that much of the information necessary to determine whether an individual is qualified for a CHL is kept in locally maintained databases, and that Colorado sheriffs do not have access to such information with respect to non-resident applicants. In light of law enforcement officials’ averments that they would be effectively unable to determine whether a non-resident applicant is qualified to obtain a CHL, I conclude that the residency requirement is substantially related to the stated governmental objective.

The 10th Circuit is now in conflict with the 7th Circuit, which today denied rehearing en banc a case in which Judge Posner held that the Second Amendment does extend outside the home. I wonder if they held this opinion pending the rehearing en banc. Curiously, Madigan is not even cited!?

With a circuit split, to SCOTUS we go.

H/T How Appealing