Trigger Locks

Listened to a good portion of the oral arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller last night. [Update: later went back and read the rest.] Have to say that it seems to me that trigger locks ought to be getting even more attention than they currently are.

Contrary to popular belief, people in Washington are allowed to have shotguns and rifles in their homes as long as the guns are registered. Some guns, including most "pistols" (defined under DC Code Section 7-2501.01 as "any firearm originally designed to be fired by use of a single hand," a.k.a. handguns), can't be registered and therefore are effectively banned under DC Code Section 7-2502.02:

"(a) A registration certificate shall not be issued for a:

(1) Sawed-off shotgun;

(2) Machine gun;

(3) Short-barreled rifle; or

(4) Pistol not validly registered to the current registrant in the District prior to September 24, 1976, except that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any organization that employs at least 1 commissioned special police officer or other employee licensed to carry a firearm and that arms the employee with a firearm during the employee's duty hours or to a police officer who has retired from the Metropolitan Police Department."

But regular rifles and shotguns aren't banned. It may be that the registration provisions for rifles and shotguns are unduly burdensome, but the provisions describing the registration process, outlined in DC Code Sections 7-2502.01 through 7-2502.14, aren't being challenged in the current case (aside from the ban on registration of some types of weapons in 7-2502.02).


However, even rifles and shotguns must be disabled in some way, such as with trigger locks:


"Except for law enforcement personnel described in § 7-2502.01(b)(1), each registrant shall keep any firearm in his possession unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless such firearm is kept at his place of business, or while being used for lawful recreational purposes within the District of Columbia." DC Code Section 7-2507.02 (emphasis added).



That provision is indeed being challenged.

The issue of trigger locks was addressed in the oral arguments in a segment that I found to be pretty significant:


-----

"CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: ... [H]ow many minutes does it take to remove a trigger lock and load a gun?...

MR. DELLINGER: There are some versions of the trigger lock that allow you to put the trigger lock on and then load the gun. But the piece that goes in the trigger mechanism, even someone as clumsy as I could remove it in a second.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well the law as I understand it says that the gun has to be unloaded. So under your hypothetical I assume that would violate the district's law if the gun is still loaded.

MR. DELLINGER: It's a question of where you put the parenthesis. I read that as disassembled and unloaded or under a trigger lock and that's the, that's the way the district.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So how long does it take if your interpretation is correct how long does it take to remove the trigger lock and make the gun operable.

MR. DELLINGER: You place a trigger lock on and it has the version I have a few that you can buy them at 17th Street hardware has a code like a three digit code. You turn to the code and you pull it apart.
That's all it takes. Even --

JUSTICE SCALIA: Turn on the lamp next to your bed so you can, you can turn the knob at 3-22-95 so

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Is it like that is it a numerical code.

MR. DELLINGER: Yes.

...

MR. DELLINGER: It took me three seconds.
I'm not kidding. It's not that difficult to do it.

...

JUSTICE ALITO: ... [M]y question with the trigger lock doesn't have to do with whether trigger locks are generally a good idea it's whether you're ever allowed to take it off for purposes of defense. ...

MR. DELLINGER: There are decisions in the District of Columbia about the right of self defense that apply to this. ...



Unofficial transcript:
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290/argument/

-------




It would be interesting to know which DC cases Mr. Dellinger was referring to on self-defense (haven't done the research myself). In response to an earlier, similar question from Justice Alito, Mr. Dellinger said, "It is a universal or near universal rule of criminal law that there is a self-defense exception. It goes without saying. We have no argument whatsoever with the notion that you may load and have a weapon ready when you need to use it for self- defense."

Still, Justice Alito did seem to imply that the statute itself ought to lay out a self-defense exception.


With all this in mind, my question is, what happens if D.C. loses, but it still wants to keep its law as strict as constitutionally permissible? Let's assume (quite plausibly, I think) that the court decides that individuals do have a right to keep and bear arms but that the right may be regulated, and further that there is little guidance from the court as to how the city must revise its law to make it comply with the Constitution under that reading.

Then the issue becomes whether allowing people to have rifles and shotguns, but requiring trigger locks, would constitute reasonable regulation. Based on the remarks of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, it would seem that such a scheme might indeed be considered reasonable if the provisions were sufficiently clear. As such, I think it would be possible for the District to make some minor revisions to the current statute without really giving up very much. To that end, here are my two suggestions for how to revise the law narrowly so as to comply with that projected hypothetical ruling but also to maintain the meaning and purpose of Section 7-2507.02:

1) Add a comma after "disassembled" and another after "device" to clarify that you can keep your gun loaded as long as there is a trigger lock on it.

2) At the end of the statute, add something like these words: "or while being used reasonably in the face of an immediate threat to defend one's own life or the life of another." (There's probably some better equivalent self-defense language out there, maybe elsewhere in the DC Code, that could be copy/pasted into the statute.)


Mr. Dellinger seemed to make basically the same point as #2 by saying, "It's where we are happy to be if all we have to do is to make clear in the trigger lock law what we have said here today that it's, it's available for self defense."

Doing, Feeling, Being

Phew. I feel like I had just a brief moment to catch my breath this evening. I've been working so much and doing so many things that it's felt almost manic. But I realized I got to the end of my week and I hadn't really planned anything fun or relaxing for Friday evening. Which actually turned out to be ok, maybe even the best thing. I ended up having drinks with my roommate and a friend, and then my roommate and I came back and watched a movie. Friday the 13th, of all things... which doesn't quite fit with the whole theme of catching my breath, although in a way it does bring my back to my childhood, making me kind of nostalgic and pensive (who knew Freddy Krueger could do all that?). As does the fact that my sister apparently just joined Facebook and is in a Facebook group called something like, "Unlike 99.9% of the Facebook population, I was born in the '70s." Also, her Facebook page makes reference to Moby Dick and to reading in general, and how she'd not really had time for much serious reading since she'd been so busy lately. Which has been true for me, too. Not that I've ever really been a reader like her (she reads a *ton* usually). But I think even more than reading specifically, it's just that I generally don't seem to make time for stepping back from the world and soaking up what's beautiful or interesting or amazing about it. In a way, I think that's always kind of been my personality. I'm kind of a manic "doer." I've always wanted to be an advocate, a lobbyist, an activist, etc. I've wanted to make some kind of impact on the world. But in this moment, stepping back, I'm realizing that by taking that approach (which I do think has its merits), I often don't really leave room for just observing the world and the wonderful things in it. I have a very close friend who does a lot of photography, and is also probably the most observant person I know. (Ok, probably anyone reading this knows who I am talking about, but that is ok.) And I have to admit that sometimes I wonder about that approach to the world -- I feel like it's very passive, like you aren't engaging with what's around you. But there's something to be said for the "zen" mentality, as well (apologies to anyone who actually knows anything about zen and feels I used that word inappropriately). I mean, a little less so if it means you let the world beat you down and you stand by as a passive observer. But maybe in a way that is all part of it. Or even if not, maybe there is just a whole different way to engage, to really connect on a deeper level, in a way that makes you really feel and connect with what's around you with heightened senses. I think reading and photography are two really good examples of that, because both involve more of a "soaking up" than even a creative process per se. (Photography can be creative, of course, but part of it seems to be about sharing that sense of, "This was revealed to me today, and it was beautiful/striking/sad/etc.") And the truth is that I will probably always be more of a "doer," and there's really nothing wrong with that. (See, e.g., my earlier post about the woman from the Employment Law Center whom I thought was so amazing because she and others had filed 72 individual cases on one issue when their initial effort to file a class action was challenged.) But still, to the extent that I can make some room for it, I think life would be a little fuller if every so often I took a little time out just to observe and connect. After all, that should remind me what it is I'm doing the doing for.

Dana Street Roasting Company

Phew. I have to admit I've been feeling pretty unbalanced in the last week or so. I think it's partly because of a legislative project I am working on at clinic that has been on my mind a lot lately. It's an employment-related issue based on the experience of one of my clients, which has led to a bill in California. (I'm purposely being kind of vague for various reasons, icluding client confidentiality and a little bit because of the political stuff.) We were hoping my client would testify in favor of the bill, but she seems to have decided not to do it, partly because the very protection we are trying to create for people in her situation doesn't exist yet. I've kind of come to terms now with the fact that she won't participate, and I'm actually not really sure how much it will affect the process, but for a while it was really stressing me out. And of course, it also raises questions as to whether I was really putting her interests first, as well as whether that should always
be the only (or primary) goal as a "community lawyer."

I also spent one night this week up until dawn (literally saw the sun rise at the library) going through cases and articles to try to come up with a tighter standard for part of the bill because I was afraid it might be so overbroad in its present form that it could be derailed. The bill in any form would really be an uphill battle, and I am actually starting from the assumption that it will not pass. (I've also been advised by two more knowledgeable people that that is the likely outcome.) Still, it is good to have gotten this far, and I would hate to see it derailed when it could maybe have been tightened up instead. The other thing that is tricky is that since the bill has now been introduced (email me if you want the bill number), if it *doesn't* pass now, that could ostensibly indicate legislative intent in the record *not* to create this protection, which could theoretically be used by opposing lawyers in future cases throughout the whole state. How much that would really happen in practice (e.g., how many lawyers would even be aware of the existence of this bill or its defeat) isn't really clear. But it does add another incentive to tread very carefully. Anyway, the hearing on the bill is at the end of March (during spring break, unfortunately, but of course I will make sure I am there), so I guess we will see how it goes then. My clinic supervisor will be testifying, so I will have to help her prepare a lot for that.

So, obviously this has been on my mind a lot. In the meantime, I've been fighting off a cold, getting behind in other work, skipping a few classes, and just generally feeling more and more stressed out. But it is nice to type this as a little release, and I am doing so while sittting at Dana Street Roasting Company, another coffee shop in Mountain View (see my earlier post on Red Rock), and drinking a warm beverage. And not reading the casebook in front of me. Which may lead to more stress eventually, but actually it is nice just to reflect on what's been stressing me out. The other part is that the work is piling on just as I'm starting to feel kind of burned out. (I think this always happens in the middle of the semester.) The good news is that my business school classes are ending soon, which will definitely lighten my academic work load. But in the meantime I will need to go to San Francisco next Friday to help a client appeal the denial of his unemployment insurance benefits, and the same client is also facing a possible eviction, which could potentially go into litigation the following week. Not to mention I am still doing some work for LIIF on their legislative project to create a partnership with the state that would support community development finance, plus the regular stuff like a final project due next week and a couple extracurricular things I need to handle.

Wow. Jesus. No wonder I feel stressed sometimes. The one good thing is I do feel I'm prioritizing the right things pretty much, but juggling it all does feel like a challenge sometimes. Kinda makes me wanna escape to a hidden island someplace, or just go drink. In the meantime, Dana Street Roasting Company is a pretty chill coffee shop (with their own big roaster in the window that smells amazing when it is running), and at least it is not in Palo Alto. :)

Returns

Since nothing I can say about the returns last night would be more insightful that whatever has been or is being written (and since, frankly, I'd be ok with either candidate), I'll just comment briefly on my experience watching the returns at the Obama office in Palo Alto, where people have been volunteering since it opened January 13th. One thing I didn't realize: rent for the office was about $2000 a month, and it was paid for (directly, I believe) by volunteers. Not sure how it worked exactly, but I liked the idea that someone could see the results of their donation so tangibly. Makes me wonder whether the next step in political fundraising is to show people exactly where their money goes. The problem with that is that some things are going to be less sexy but just as necessary, and it could be harder to raise money for those things (or for a "general fund" that would cover them). Nonprofits deal with that trade-off all the time, though, so maybe some nonprofit fundraisers would have good advice about how to make this a successful strategy.

I also noticed that people really didn't seem to be walking away dejected, despite the outcome. In part this may have been because we left before Texas was called, but he was behind by that time. I think partly it was the math that kept people's hopes up, as well as Obama's speech. I'm not usually a huge Chris Matthews fan, but I believe he was the one who commented that Obama had not mentioned Hillary in his speech, which he said was appropriate given that she can't really catch up to him. Superdelegates plus Florida and Michigan, or some really serious landslides, may keep this open for her, but it seems to be leaning his way, despite her hinting at a dream ticket. (I doubt she'd take VP, so if anything I think this is more a strategy to get people to see her as the front runner, though I guess you never know.) I will say I don't think the fact that the campaign is taking so long is necessarily so bad for Democrats, because it does seem to be increasing turnout. Let's hope that doesn't lead to burnout, but I'm optimistic.

Ok, so maybe I did add my two cents on the race itself. What can I say? It's been exciting.

Any thoughts on the Bush endorsement? Last night I didn't feel so great about Obama's attempts to compare McCain to Bush, but maybe this does make it easier.

Photo Trivia

Ten points if you can identify the woman on the left. (Hint: there's a reason I posted this today.)

Microcredit in China

Attended a panel on microcredit in China this evening. One interesting take-away was that although the default rates on microloans are widely known to be very low, it is often because borrowers rely on family members or others--as opposed to surpluses from successfull investments--to help them make repayments. Many models (including, I believe, the Grameen model, though don't believe Grameen itself operates directly in China) require borrowers to enter into small "borrower groups" that are jointly liable for repayment. Interestingly, borrowers are often not permitted to join borrower groups with their family members, though aside from that restriction they can choose their group freely. These groups help exert social pressure on each individual borrower to repay, though they also serve as what was called "social collateral" (i.e., if one member can't pay, the others will). Of course, if the only capital the group had access to were the microloans, then one could argue that on net the impact must be positive if default rates are low, even if not every investment is successful. But even among the very poor, there are often other sources of capital (such as family, possessions, or land), and I got the sense that these sources often filled in the gaps when it came time to make repayments.

I also found the discussion of costs to be interesting. One panelist noted that scale was a key consideration for those institutions attempting to make microlending competitive. She observed that this had a tendency to refocus microfinance institutions on urban areas (or other areas of high concentration) where more loans could be serviced in a short period, even if the deepest poverty in a given country like China actually existed in the remote countryside. Another panelist (the one most closely tied to a particular microfinance institution in China) mentioned the need to provide business training (a.k.a. "technical assistance") in addition to access to capital. Left me wondering again about the sustainability of a business-oriented model that would inherently involve high costs such as technical assistance and heavy loan servicing (given the high number of small loans and the necessity of unsophisticated servicing techniques). Some of the costs can be minimized, of course, but that may be difficult to do without blurring the mission.

There was also a broad discussion of the types and effectiveness of various microlending institutions in China, as well as regulatory changes that could make the microlending environment there more favorable, but I would need to go back to the slides to really remember all the points on those issues. I think they may get posted online somewhere, so if I find them I will try to post a link.

Incidentally, one of the panelists was the founder of a microcredit intermediary focusing on China called Wokai. I set up a meeting to talk to her more about her experiences, so I'll report back what I learn.

Rural Development Institute

Nonprofit Management today was focused on an organization called the Rural Development Institute. It was held up as probably the most successful individual nonprofit we had studied so far. RDI's mission is to contribute to the alleviation of poverty by "helping the rural poor in developing countries obtain legal rights to land." Essentially, they research and design land reform programs in developing nations and then work with governments and third parties to implement those programs. While there can be many benefits of land ownership, the two mentioned that I found the most interesting were serving as a potential source of economic surplus (and hence investment -- a model often discussed as one of the first steps toward capitalist reform in China) and providing access to credit by serving as collateral (again facilitating investment).

I also found it interesting that the organization's focus was arguably libertarian: make sure the government protects private property rights and let economic efficiency emerge through bargaining. But this really only applied in countries where they were advocating privatization. Since they also seemed to advocate redistribution where property rights were held privately, I asked the guest speaker why bargaining wouldn't occur spontaneously in such contexts. His answer had to do with the transaction costs associated with buying and selling small plots of land. Essentially, he argued that large-scale reform plans could help reduce those costs by aggregating the plots before placing them on the market. But I wonder whether an argument could also be made in favor of reform on the basis of promoting free and fair competition. In other words, similar to monopolies/oligopolies, leaving property rights in the hands of a few wealthy landowners could prohibit the most efficient outcomes.

Incidentally, our guest speaker, RDI's founder and president emeritus Roy Prosterman, was a former lawyer at Sullivan & Cromwell (who has also twice been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize), so score one for lawyers in management.