|link| Posted 12:25 PM by Brian Linse

All According To Plan

Josh Marshall has a must-read piece in Washington Monthly.

|link| Posted 12:15 PM by Brian Linse

A Hart-Felt Welcome

ANBD welcomes Gary Hart to the ranks of the bloggers! As part of his general website, Hart has started his own blog.

|link| Posted 3:08 PM by Brian Linse

Richard Perle Resigns

Perle has quit as chairman of the the Defense Policy Board. So far just hearing it on NPR, but they are reporting that Rummy asked him to stay, and that it did have some thing to do with his lobbying for Global Crossing. Some mention of him donating proceeds from any GC deal to the families of fallen soldiers.

Isn't that sweet of ol' Rummy... Obviously, Rove didn't want him to stay.

I'm happy to hear this news, but frankly, Perle has already done his damage.

UPDATE: Now they are reporting on NPR that Perle has only resigned as chairman, but will remain a member of the board! Fucking unbelievable! This strikes me as some sort of weird Rummy/Rove compromise. I'd have thought Rove's dick would be bigger in a case like this. What arrogant pricks these guys are. When will the public wake up and realize they are being insulted?

Now it's on the wires. And now updated with a bit more info.

FRIDAY UPDATE: The New York Times has more details.

|link| Posted 5:00 PM by Brian Linse

Sen. Moynihan Dead At 76

Very sad news today. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan is dead at the age of 76.

New York Times Obituary

|link| Posted 3:25 PM by Brian Linse

Booze And Guns

An opinion from Professor Eugene Volokh is usually enough to bring me down from the fence on any issue. But in a recent Volokh Conspiracy post on the NAACP gun liability suit cited in my post below, I think Professor Volokh has missed the point.

He draws an analogy to alcohol sales and the inherent problems that a product liability case presents, and if the NAACP case were a simple claim of blanket product liability I would have to agree that it would be rather silly. Volokh asks us to imagine a case where alcohol manufacturers were to be held responsible for the fact that some underage college student were able to buy their product illegally. In the context of his example it is, of course, a ridiculous notion.

But Professor Volokh is not considering the particulars of the NAACP case. Let's try this: What if a case were to be filed that claimed that certain alcohol manufacturers were aware that certain distributors and retailers were conspiring to exploit the illegal market in underage alcohol sales, and the alcohol makers in question actively sought to avoid doing anything about the problem -- including holding meetings to discuss ways to keep the practice viable but avoid liability for themselves. And what if a former highly placed lobbyist for the booze makers were scheduled to testify to that effect? Further, what if the plaintiffs had obtained long sought after data from the BATF that seems to back up their claim that certain companies products were disproportionately involved in illegal sales through the same small group of retailers?

It doesn't sound so silly anymore, does it?

The above analogy is closer to what is going on in the present case brought by the NAACP in a Brooklyn court. So far, I've yet to find a source from the gun rights side that has addressed the specifics of Robert Ricker's allegations, or tackled the evidence of the BATF data. There are issues of judicial activism that need looking at in this case, but they do not remove the issues of unique evidence that will be presented in the Brooklyn court.

I'd love to hear Professor Volokh's thoughts on the activism issue, as well his take on the practice of lawyers who arrange for cases to be brought in jurisdictions that they feel will be more favorable to their case. I have always thought that this was a common and accepted, perhaps even noble tactic among lawyers, but I could easily be wrong on that point.

What I would also love to hear are the thoughts of other gun rights defenders on the specific evidence that is very troubling in this case. Another analogy, that of the tobacco lawsuits, would seem at this stage to be more relevant. And those cases aren't working out too well for the manufacturers.

|link| Posted 10:40 AM by Brian Linse

Ricker Expected To Testify For NAACP

Jury selection will begin tomorrow in the gun manufacturing liability case brought by the NAACP in New York. Of all the cases currently in progress, this one looks to be the most likely to succeed. Former gun lobbyist, now first-ever industry whistleblower, Robert Ricker, is expected to testify for the plaintiffs.

Ricker had previously given a deposition in a California case, but his direct testimony in this case would be a significant hurdle for the defense to overcome. The NAACP will also be using statistical analysis of data from the BATF to prove a pattern of negligence in the distribution of guns from certain manufacturers that has led to significant numbers of illegal sales resulting in firearms used in felonies.

From the New York Times:

In a court filing, Mr. Ricker said gun manufacturers had long known that some of their dealers sold guns to criminals but pressured one another into remaining silent for fear of legal liability. The Brooklyn case is expected to be Mr. Ricker's first appearance on the witness stand for the plaintiffs in a liability case, and industry lawyers are already attacking his credibility.

Both sides say the heart of the N.A.A.C.P.'s case will be a statistical analysis of data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms that includes the sales history of guns that law-enforcement agencies seek to trace. Many of those tracing requests are begun after guns are found in crime investigations. Critics of the gun industry have long sought the information to try to show that manufacturers knew how their guns were routed toward illegal uses.

Watch for the gun industry to attack Ricker, a man who was formerly one of their heroes ("Gun Rights Defender of the Month"), and watch for a potential rift to develop between the gun makers and the wholesalers who are caught in the middle and in a position to be scapegoats. This case is going to be a turning point in the gun control battle, and the industry insiders must be reading the headlines of the tobacco lawsuits in horror.

UPDATE: Jacob Sullum has a piece in Reason Online that avoids the issues of Ricker's testimony and the BATF data, but addresses important concerns about judicial activism that some feel is at work in the case. I have mixed feelings about this one as a supporter of the Second Amendment as an individual liberty, but I have no sympathy for the extremist wing of the NRA that will be sweating this one out. In fact, my reading of the history of these cases (going back to the Clinton administration's attempts to work with the industry) tells me that it is this stubborn, hard-line position that has brought them to this particular day in court. Definitely one to watch.