These are bad days for Paul Hemeke and supporters. Just as people with a terminal illness go through the five stages of grief they see their world view dying and are experiencing a similar process. Here we have denial:

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the Chicago case is “unlikely to have much practical impact on most gun laws regardless of how the Court rules.”

“Even if the Court were to hold the Second Amendment applicable to states and localities,” he said, “such a ruling is unlikely to change the crucial holding by the Supreme Court in Heller that a wide range of reasonable gun laws are presumptively constitutional, and that the Second Amendment right is narrowly limited to guns in the home for self-defense.”

Reports are coming in that it went well in California this morning.

David Hardy has some news but the good stuff is here (I cherry picked the mini-posts):

Why can’t we assume without deciding that the second amendment is incorporated? What would change? Alameda still floundering.

Why isn’t this a summary judgement case? Apparently since guns aren’t posessed at a gun show for self defense then Heller doesn’t apply… Weird.

Alameda has serious foot in mouth. Just agreed that only dimwitted judges would not accept incorporation arguments.

Alameda says Heller does not guarantee guns! Judge is dragging her through the mud.

What if fairground isn’t a sensitive place? Then we would have to declare ordinance null (judge question and statement) What is sensitive about a fairgrounds? Is every government property a sensitive place? Schools and govt buildings. Invitees who don’t know eachother, thus it is a sensitive place. Gun shows cause liability problems, look at fairground shooting that caused 11 liability lawsuits.

Oh no, we had one shooting at the fairgrounds! 11 people, 4 of them children! What about shootings in office buildings? Gun show was not in place when the shooting happened. Gun shows in conjunction with other events did not cause problems. Open carry us allowed! Metal detectors to detect illegal concealed firearms. County has no problem with firearms carried for self defense. Alameda is screwed!

Alameda GETTING HAMMERED! Legislature can ban guns tomorrow based on her antiquated case law.

Update: Via Dave Hardy I find we now have audio of the proceedings.

Update2: Also via Dave Hardy we have a decision (sort of).

Even with all the relaxed gun laws and the big gun buying spree that began in late 2008 it didn’t translate into increased crime rates. In fact it was just the opposite:

Murder and manslaughter dropped almost 4 percent last year, as reported crime overall fell around the country, according to new data released Monday by the FBI.

The 3.9 percent decline in killings reported to police was part of a nationwide drop in violent crime of 1.9 percent from 2007 to 2008. Rapes declined 1.6 percent, to the lowest national number in 20 years — about 89,000.

The statistics are based on crimes reported to police, who then forward the information to the FBI. There were 14,180 murder victims in the United States last year.

“What has been impressive has been how flat all the violent crime rates have been since 2000. To a large degree that’s still the case, but the striking change this year has been murder,” said Alfred Blumstein, a professor of criminal justice at Carnegie-Mellon University.

The figures show that crime has come way down since its peak in the early 1990’s.

This was in the presence of a huge economic downturn which usually is an indicator for increased crime rates. So either gun ownership isn’t positively correlated with crime (and in fact is negative associated with crime rates) or there is some other driving factor which observers don’t know about or want to talk about.

We don’t have anti-gun bigots being prosecuted for violations of 18 USC 241 and 242 but this is another step closer:

Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that the police violated Matthew St. John’s constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment because they seized and disarmed him even though there was not “any reason to believe that a crime was afoot.”  Judge Black’s opinion is consistent with numerous high state and federal appellate courts, e.g., the United States Supreme Court in Florida v. J.L. (2000) (detaining man on mere report that he has a gun violates the Fourth Amendment) and the Washington Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004) (detaining man observed by police as openly carrying rifles on a public street violates the Fourth Amendment).

Mr. St. John’s attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was pleased with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of the litigation which is a jury trial to establish the amount of damages, and possibly punitive damages.  Garcia said that 

“[i]t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues presented by both sides and conclude that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from detaining and searching individuals solely for exercising their rights to possess a firearm as guaranteed by our state and federal constitutions.”

Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers’ requested “qualified immunity,” a judicially created doctrine allowing government officials acting in good faith to avoid liability for violating the law where the law was not “clearly established.”

I think its actually a big step closer to where we want to be.

H/T to Ride Fast.