Interesting post over at ABC News about a question on the Obama Transition Team questionaire.  The question reads:

Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun?  If so, provide complete ownership and registration information.  Has the registration ever lapsed?  Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.

The Obama team reports that the question is meant "to ensure anyone with a gun has one within the parameters of the law; the question is not meant to be any different in scope than the one about whether the Obama Administration candidate has run afoul of any law or regulation, ever gotten a traffic ticket of more than $50 in fines, and so on."

The NRA (over?)reacts:  "One thing is for sure:  If the Obama team thinks these are good questions to ask job applicants, it’s only a matter of time before they’ll want to ask the rest of us, too."

In Alaska, there is still no call in the race between Democratic challenger Mark Begich and Republican incumbent (and recently convicted felon) Ted Stevens, who has a 3,200 vote lead with 81,000 ballots still to be counted.  Some think that the uncounted ballots may push Begich over the top.  But what if Stevens wins?  Will he get to keep his Senate seat despite his conviction?

Well, it's complicated.  Potentially, the easiest solution would be for Stevens to resign.  Then, Alaska's Gov. Palin would call a special election.  But even in that case state law is unclear on whether Palin can first appoint a temporary replacement (thus giving her presumably Republican choice a chance to run as an "incumbent").

And what if Stevens refuses to resign?  The Senate has the option under Article I, Section 5 to expel Stevens by a 2/3 vote.  But Congress has traditionally been hesitant to expel a member for conduct that took place in a prior session of Congress.  Why?  Well, the voters would have known about Stevens's conduct prior to the election, and thus would have returned him to the Senate with their "blessing."  The presumption that the people get to choose their own representatives is strong.  Even so, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said that Stevens is "going to be kicked out of the Senate.  Of course he is."  We'll see.  If Stevens is expelled, that decision may be held by the Supreme Court to be a non-justiciable political question.  Should be interesting, no matter what happens.

I, for one, don't think an Obama administration would be that much different than a McCain administration on gun-control issues.  Both candidates have come out in support of closing the gun-show loophole in the Brady Law background-check requirement.  McCain is against assault-weapons regulation, but most people know that the 1994-2004 assault-weapons ban didn't do much but change the way a few weapons were configured (in order to get around the simplistic express definitions of the ban).  Most importantly, D.C. v. Heller (pdf) has been decided, so the most basic question — Is there an individual right to bear arms in self defense? — has been answered affirmatively.  As the Brady Campaign has opined, Heller, which takes the extreme positions of both sides of the gun-control debate off the table, should help clear some of the wedge politics that have marked the debate.  Whether there's much federal movement on gun control probably has more to do with 1) whether the Dems get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and 2) whether the Dems really want to take on this relatively toxic issue.

But don't bother telling that to Dan Cooper.

Mr. Cooper, co-founder and president of Cooper Firearms of Montana, Inc., was asked by his board of directors to resign "after word that he supports Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama led to calls on pro-gun Web sites to boycott the company’s products."  Mr. Cooper went along with the request in an attempt to help the company and its 40 employees avoid a backlash over his personal views.

So much for clearing some of the wedge politics…  Of course, people have every right to boycott.  By the same token, I suppose Obama supporters in the market for a beautiful long gun should consider making their next purchase from Cooper Firearms.  Maybe Biden could buy one to put in his gun safe next to those Beretta shotguns of his…

Presidential candidate John McCain said in last week's debate that ACORN, a group pushing to register over a million new voters this election cycle, "is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy."  Wow.  Very strong words.  But is this really the case?  What kind of fraud are we talking about here?

The allegations seem to be that certain ACORN registration collectors, who were paid for each registration collected, filled in fictitious registrations in order to get paid more.  This is voter registration fraud.  Thus we get the the stories that Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, and the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys were newly registered to vote in Nevada this fall.  (After today's loss, the Cowboys MAY want to move to Nevada …)  But it's not an election fraud problem — that is, it has no potential to effect the election — unless Mickey Mouse and his friends show up to vote in November.

As Prof. Rick Hasen of Loyola Law School says, claims like McCain's are

hyperbole because there’s no good evidence that voter registration fraud leads to election fraud that changes elections. And it’s irresponsible because it gins up worries that the election is going to be stolen.

I think Prof. Hasen has it about right.

Now a word from our Irony Department.  The owner of Young Political Majors, a firm hired by the California GOP to sign up new voters, has been arrested on suspicion of voter registration fraud.  Mark Jacoby allegedly registered himself at a childhood address so that he would meet a requirement to gather signatures in California.  A warrant for Mr. Jacoby's arrest for voter registration fraud and perjury was also issued earlier this month by the L.A. D.A.'s office, arising out of charges that YPM allegedly tricked voters into registering as Republicans by saying they were signing a petition to toughen penalties against child molesters.  Sigh.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has this morning endorsed Senator Barack Obama in the presidential race.  Perhaps not a surprise, though I wonder whether it helps Obama or hurts him.  The Brady Campaign says in its press release that "The difference between the two tickets is clearest with regard to assault weapons," pointing to Obama's statement in his nomination acceptance speech that "the reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals."

Interesting story over at MSNBC today:  "Shooting for the sweet spot:  How McCain, Obama say they'll balance crime and the Second Amendment."  It compares the presidential candidates' positions on 2nd Amendment and gun control/gun rights issues.  We already know what the National Rifle Association thinks:  it is planning to spend $40 million this year opposing Obama, after spending $20 million against John Kerry in 2004.

While one must have a license to carry a concealed handgun in Ohio, it is currently legal to carry the same handgun openly in most places.  The Plain Dealer has an interesting story this morning about a person arrested last month, apparantly while carrying openly.  The twist is that police charged him with concealed carrying without a license, this despite the fact that they had received three 911 calls reporting the presence of the weapon (suggesting that it was, indeed, being carried openly).  Another interesting aspect of the story is that Cleveland apparantly still has a local prohibition against open carry on the books, and that "police are under orders by Mayor Frank Jackson to continue enforcing the local rules despite the state law, according to Lt. Thomas Stacho, a department spokesman."  Hmm.  Sounds like a recipe for court-ordered legal fees to me.

"Incorporation" is the legal term for finding that parts of the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution) apply to limit the power of state governments.  The Bill of Rights as originally adopted only applied to limit federal power, but the Supreme Court has since held that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (which was ratified in 1868 following the Civil War and expressly limits the states' power) "incorporated" many of the Bill of Rights (for example, the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment, and most of the Fifth Amendment).  An open question is whether the Second Amendment limits the power of the states.  In a very interesting and thoughtful post at PrawfsBlawg, Prof. Rick Hills of NYU Law argues that incorporating the Heller decision against the states would undermine the Second Amendment.  Good reading, and a fair argument.  Hills predicts, however, that the federal courts will incorporate the Second Amendment.

I wonder what the Venn diagram looks like for people who advocate for a strong reading of the Second Amendment and people who argue for more "states' rights"?  I suspect a bit of an overlap.  Such people will be forced to argue for one or the other in states that have restrictive gun control laws, as only a pro-federal reading of incorporation will allow for an application of Heller to the states.

News today of the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in Ohioans For Concealed Carry, Inc. v. Clyde.  In the eagerly awaited decision, the Court rejected the city of Clyde's attempt to ban guns in a local park.  The Court held that the state concealed carry statute preempts local bans of this type, despite the "home rule" provision of the Ohio Constitution.

Interesting article in the Washington Post this weekend reporting on two separate efforts to modify the D.C. firearms rules put into place following the D.C. v. Heller ruling earlier this year.  The D.C. Council is proposing to ease certain restrictions, while the U.S. Congress is considering a bill that would "virtually end local handgun control" in D.C.  The local proposal would permit semiautomatic handgun registration and allow guns to be stored in a loaded and fully operable condition.  Current law only allows registration of revolvers, and requires that guns be unloaded and disabled or locked.  The new local law would introduce criminal liability, however, for owners of loaded, unlocked firearms that come into the possession of minors, irrespective of whether any injury results.

Senate Bill 184, signed by Governor Strickland in June, takes effect today.  Among other things, the new law provides "tweaks" to the concealed carry law, to make it easier for concealed carry holders to comply with its provisions.  For example, under the new law a concealed-carry license holder  in a car may carry a concealed handgun in an unlocked glove compartment or console.  Under the old law, consoles were not mentioned and the glove compartment had to be locked.  Also, a person carrying concealed who stays within her vehicle may drop off or pick up a child from school.  Under a literal reading of prior law, a concealed-carry holder needed to park away from the school and leave her gun in her vehicle when she wished to enter school grounds.  The "Castle Doctrine" has also now been enshrined in Ohio law, giving a rebuttable presumption of self-defense to a person who shoots an intruder in that person's home or occupied car.  A presumption is an important concept in litigation, functioning as a "tie-breaker" if the factfinder cannot find that either side has proven its case.  Over 1/2 the states now have some form of castle doctrine.

Remember the "Reform Ohio Now" drive back in the fall of 2005?  Issue 4 would have amended the Ohio Constitution to put into place a new system for drawing legislative and Congressional districts.  Under our current system, Congressional districts are redrawn in the year following a census (e.g. 2011) by the state legislature, with the Governor having veto power.  State legislative districts are drawn in the same year by a 5-person Reapportionment Board, consisting of the Governor, the Auditor, the Secretary of State, a person selected by the majority leadership of the state legislature, and a person selected by the minority leadership of the legislature.  In 2001, the Republicans controlled the process.  Most Democrats think that they will control the process in 2011.  And that's the problem… 

If, that is, you consider partisan and incumbent-protecting gerrymandering a problem.  Some people think it's the way things should work — to the victor belong the spoils.  Some others worry about being the spoils.

The Democrats will say now that they need to keep the present system through 2011 just to re-balance the state.  Ohio is famously nearly a 50/50 red/blue state these days, but currently has an 11 Rep. / 7 Dem. split in its Congressional delegation (and a 21/12 split in the Ohio Senate).  (And the Congressional delegation split would be 12/6 but for the Bob Ney debacle…)  But now is the time for the Democrats to step up and make a good proposal for redistricting reform.  Given the current election climate in Ohio, I think the Republicans would be wise to go along.

Here's an interesting article about a small Texas school district that has voted to allow concealed-carry by teachers in the local school.  Small town, not much crime, but the nearest law enforcement is 17 miles away.

(With apologies to Dr. Elmo.)

News last week that the California State Senate

"approved a bill requiring all hybrids and electric vehicles to have a minimum sound level."

Well, not exactly.  Actually, the California Senate passed a bill that

"directs the California Energy Commission to set up a committee to study the issue and report back in one year with recommendations on what, if anything, to do about it."

And the bill must first be signed by the Governator before the committee is even convened.  Still, the proposal follows on one from Maryland and from the U. S. Congress (the Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act of 2008) that suggest similar committees and studies.

The studies are probably a good idea.  Maybe the Prius (when in electric-only mode) and other cars really are too quiet for pedestrian safety.  At least one company seems to have so concluded — the Fisker Karma plug-in hybrid will broadcast motor noise through external speakers.  (Of course, if all cars were electric, we'd be able to hear them and the birds singing…)

Best of all for me, this is a great example of the legislative process in action.  Interest groups have made their voices heard.   The legislature is rumbling into action.  People complain that "nothing ever gets done" by Congress, but isn't nothing is better than action taken without a sufficient basis?  Sure, it's an inefficient way to run a country.  But efficiency isn't always the highest value to which we should aspire.  We don't need to have the trains run on time, whatever the cost.

(Disclosure:  As a Prius owner, I'll be interested in seeing how this one turns out.)

(Sorry.)  We are going to have a lot to talk about in my Firearms Regulation class at Akron Law this fall.  Since the U.S. Supreme Court's momentous decision in D.C. v. Heller in June, more and more gun rights issues are in the news.  Two interesting articles yesterday talk about concealed carry rights in the National Parks and at Walt Disney World.  How's that for your summer vacation!

Some people will be very concerned about concealed-carry permit holders with handguns in these highly public, family-oriented spots.  Others will likely point out that any person with evil deeds in mind would not be respecting prohibitions on concealed carry, anyway.  Isn't it relevant how people with concealed-carry permits have been behaving themselves over the past 5 years or so as more and more states have allowed it?  When my class considers some of the statistics this fall, I'll be posting more about these issues.

I saw the above slogan on a bumper-sticker this weekend, and my first thought was "Why?".  Setting aside the partisan stances on this issue (It's possible — both presidential candidates, for example, have said that they oppose drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge), what is this issue about?  Who benefits (in legal terms, we might say, "Cui bono?") from drilling on United States soil?  Do the U.S. people in general benefit, or only a small subset thereof?  These are the kind of questions we ask all the time in my Legislative Process seminar at Akron Law, as we try to figure out why Congress and other governmental actors behave as they do.  So, what are the answers?

Now that you're past the jump, I have to admit that I often don't know the answers to these basic, but difficult, questions.  But they do provide wonderful topics for classroom (and real-world) debate.  In this case, there is a fundamental question of how much usable oil is under U.S. soil.  If there is a lot, the best-case argument might posit, then developing it would lessen our dependence on foreign sources of oil and lower the price of oil for U.S. consumers.  But is there a lot?  Let's consider the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.  A 2008 Department of Energy assessment of oil in the ANWR, prepared at the request of Senator (and alleged criminal) Ted Stevens of Alaska concluded that for the "high oil resource case" (that is, the best-case scenario for finding oil, only a 5% chance) we might see a $1.44 drop in per/barrel (not per gallon) oil prices by 2027.  Wow.  And even then, OPEC could just decrease output and cause price to increase again.  Moreover, an increase in U.S. oil production does nothing to address the problem of global warming caused by carbon emissions.  So, in the average case, more drilling (at least in ANWR) doesn't seem likely to help the U.S. people in general.

So who benefits from more drilling?  Somebody must, because someone is pushing hard to keep the issue active in the legislative process.  Well, more drilling couldn't hurt Exxon Mobil, which once again set the mark for the largest quarterly profit in U.S. history at the end of last month.  Nearly $20 million total contributions from the oil and gas industry have been given to politicians on both sides of the aisle in this election cycle.  Now, what do you think?  And, as we try in the classroom, please keep the discussion civil…

See Wall Street Journal article here.  Here are a couple of representative quotations:

Republicans are moving to examine surges in voter registrations in some states. A Republican lawyers group held a national training session on election law over the weekend that included campaign attorneys for Sen. John McCain and other Republican leaders. One session discussed how party operatives can identify and respond to instances of voter fraud.

…

Obama campaign general counsel Bob Bauer last Tuesday said in a memorandum to campaign supporters that their own voter legal defense operation is under way, earlier than those of previous Democratic campaigns, including legal counsel on the ground in 50 states. The campaign is working closely with the Democratic Party, which said it has spent three years building a voter-protection program that includes more than 18 paid staff and 7,000 lawyers. The personnel deployed Aug. 1 and are dealing directly with local elections officials.

Hearkens back to what I blogged about here.

A friend of mine was just denied when he tried to renew his Ohio license to carry a concealed handgun.  The letter from the Summit County Sheriff's Office identified the reason for denial as the presence on his record of two minor misdemeanor marijuana possession convictions from 1996 and 1997, when my friend was 19 and 20 years old, respectively.  I have lots of questions about the particulars of my friend's denial, but irrespective of the facts of that specific case, an interesting question is raised:  in general, what factors should lead to the denial of a concealed carry permit?

As I have blogged before, Ohio is a "shall issue" state for concealed carry licenses.  This means that if certain factors are met by an applicant for a license, the Sheriff has no discretion to deny the application.  Under Ohio law, the factors include an absence of certain criminal conduct on one's record.  For example, one cannot be a fugitive from justice or presently under indictment for:

a felony; an offense [under certain state code provisions] … that involves the illegal possession, use, sale, administration, or distribution of or trafficking in a drug of abuse; a misdemeanor offense of violence; or [assault or negilgent assault].

In a similar vein, one cannot ever have previously been convicted of or pleaded guilty to

a felony or an offense [under certain state code provisions] … that involves the illegal possession, use, sale, administration, or distribution of or trafficking in a drug of abuse; [or have] been adjudicated a delinquent child for committing [one of the above acts]; [or have] been convicted of, pleaded guilty to, or adjudicated a delinquent child for committing [assault on] a peace officer.

Also, within the past three years, one cannot have "been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor offense of violence."

OK, if you want a concealed handgun license:  no felonies, no drug convictions, no assaulting police officers, and no recent offenses of violence.  Seems pretty fair to me.

But following this summer's Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller (which I blogged about here), we are going to see some litigation in this area.  Heller says that individuals have a fundamental right to keep and bear arms in self defense.  The government can regulate that right, but we don't know where the limits are yet.  Many people are ready to argue that felons should be able to carry concealed (not in prison, presumably, but once they have paid their debt to society).  As for people with minor misdemeanor dope possession convictions that are over a decade old?  I'm pretty sure even more people would be willing to argue that those folks shouldn't be barred.  What do you think?  (Incidentally, my friend's convictions were under an Akron municipal ordinance, not one of the state statutes listed in the concealed carry licensing statute.  I'm not licensed to practice Ohio law, but, under the precise wording of the concealed carry statute, I think he has a good argument that his earlier convictions don't preclude him from receiving a license.)

I teach a seminar in Legislative Process at Akron Law each fall, and often get asked, "What is Legislative Process, anyway?"  My usual answer is "Everything!"

As you sit reading this blog, you exist in a web of regulation — governing your housing specifications, the noise you can make, the electricity that flows to your computer, the quality of the air you breathe and the water you drink, etc., etc., etc.  All of these regulations arise, in one way or another, out of the legislative process.  I tell my students, "Once you take a legislative process class, you'll never read the newspaper the same way again — you'll see the legislative process at work everywhere."

But rarely does the legislative process itself command headlines…

This past week, though, came news of the "Tomnibus," an effort by the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D. Nev.), to advance 35 pieces of unrelated legislation (an "omnibus" package) that have been blocked by a single senator, Tom Coburn (R. Okla.).  Some may be wondering what this is all about.

Because the Senate was set up to be the deliberative body of Congress (for example, 6-year terms and senators originally not directly elected by the people), the Senate has long had a tradition of "unlimited debate" — in other words, no action can be taken in the Senate while any senator wants to debate that action.  Unlimited debate soon led, of course, to the invention of the "filibuster," where a senator or group of senators engages in "debate," in order to prevent a vote on an underlying action.  (Hey, most of us have seen "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," right?)  For routine actions, the Senate avoids unlimited debate by taking many actions by "unanimous consent," where all senators agree that no further debate need to occur before approval of a particular item.

A lesser known mechanism than the filibuster for postponing action on an issue is the senatorial "hold."  Originally developed to insure that senators could prevent a final vote from being taken in their absence, any senator may place a "hold" on legislation, indicating to the Majority Leader that the senator does not agree that debate is concluded on that particular item.  This prevents (by custom) the Majority Leader from calling for a vote or for passage by unanimous consent.

Senator Coburn has placed over 80 "holds" on legislation currently pending in the Senate.  Not because he is going to be absent from a vote, nor because he wants debate on the legislation, but rather as a means to prevent the legislation from being passed.  As reported in the Washington Post, under Senate rules, it will be difficult to break that hold:

For Reid to get around Coburn's hold, he would need to file a motion to proceed to the bill; if at least 60 senators vote for that motion, it would take another two days of debate before Reid could call another vote on a motion to close off debate, called cloture. If at least 60 senators support that, a final vote on the bill is scheduled, but only after another 30 hours of floor debate.

Thus, the "Tomnibus."  By putting together 35 popular bills, all of which have been approved by the House, the Majority Leader is hoping to set the above process in motion.  It should be an interesting week for fans of the legislative process!  (And that really should include everyone.)

Here's an interesting story about a Hudson resident and Ohio University student who mistakenly voted twice in this year's primary election, and ended up pleading guilty to a fifth-degree felony, election falsification.  Did new Voter I.D. laws save the day?  Not exactly.

As the story explains:

[The student], who voted in Summit County via absentee ballot and in Athens County via provisional ballot, said voting twice was an accident.

"I registered to vote absentee in Hudson because I wanted to vote for local issues, but I made a mistake, checking non-partisan, so I wasn't given an opportunity to vote for a presidential candidate in the election," she said in a phone call July 17.

Kleinert said she thought her absentee ballot was void because she didn't vote for a presidential candidate and voted on election day in the Athens election.

"I voted in Hudson on a local issue and voted on a presidential candidate in Athens," Kleinert said.

Voter I.D. requirements don't apply in the case of absentee ballots, for obvious reasons — you mail your request to the board of elections and receive the ballot at your registered address.  Plus, voter I.D. requirements did not appear to affect the student's vote in Athens County, as she voted as herself, not some different voter.  It seems the student was "caught," by the Athens County election board, which compared primary voters with the Summit County election board and found the double vote.  Voter I.D. requirements go to the issue of voter impersonation, which is when one person attempts to vote with another person's ballot at the polling place.  Voter impersonation appears not to be a very common type of voter fraud at all.  As Indiana University Professor Eric Rasmusen wrote last year:

Why pay people to vote twice at the polling place when you can pay them to give you their absentee ballot to mail in? In fact, why pay people at all, when you can invent nonexistent people and mail in ballots for them?

An interesting question.  Should we not have at least as much protection against voter fraud through absentee ballot fraud as we have against polling-place voter impersonation?  I would think that a really good state-wide database of properly registered voters would be the place to start.  With the proper database in place at each polling location, when someone attempts to pick up a provisional ballot, having already voted absentee, she could be reminded instantly of that earlier vote — before mistakenly taking a provisional ballot and committing a felony.

One fact to emerge from last week's tragic shooting death of Twinsburg Police Patrolman Joshua Miktarian is that the shooter, Ashford Thompson, held a valid Ohio license to carry a concealed handgun. Despite the incredibly small sample-size of this data point, Thompson's licensed status was sure to cause a great deal of angst in the blogosphere, as one argument that has been made in favor of concealed carry is that license holders are considerably less criminally-inclined than the public at large.

It has also been reported that Thompson has in recent years had several brushes with the law, including citations for speeding, tinted windows, and loud music, a conviction for drunken driving, and an arrest for disorderly conduct/threatening and carrying a concealed weapon.

So some might ask: How did this guy have the right to carry concealed? The answer is surprisingly simple…

Thompson was able to have a permit to carry a concealed handgun because they are fairly easy to get in Ohio, as they are in any of the other approximately 40 "shall issue" states in the United States. The states are so-called because the permitting authority must issue a concealed carry license to any party who meets basic state requirements. The lack of discretion in issuing licenses distinguishes this large number of states from the "may issue" states, where the permitting authority has discretion to deny issuance of a license, even to those applicants who meet state requirements. (There are also two states, Wisconsin and Illinois, that allow no legal concealed carry. Strangely, criminals in those states continue to carry with callous disregard for the law.)

In Ohio, to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun, one must submit to one's sheriff (or the sheriff of an adjacent county) an application, fee, current color photo, proof of participation in a basic (12 hour) certification course, certification that one has read the Ohio firearms pamphlet, and a set of fingerprints.

The fingerprint and application information is used for a criminal history and incompetency records check. The sheriff within 45 days "shall issue" a license, good for four years, if: the applicant is at least 21; has lived in Ohio for at least 45 days (and the county for at least 30 days); is not a fugitive from justice; is not under indictment for, and has not been convicted of, a felony, a drug offense, or a number of other misdemeanor violence offenses, including certain juvenile offenses; doesn't have a history of adjudicated mental illness or commitment to a mental institution; is not subject to a protective order; and certifies that the handgun is for self-defense during lawful activity.

Not a trivial set of requirements, by any means, but fairly easily met by those with no criminal or serious mental health history. Still, one can easily appreciate the argument, advanced by concealed-carry advocates, that license holders are among the safest and most law-abiding citizens in our society.

Some, of course, will argue that any requirement of a license to carry is an infringement of certain basic rights to self-defense. Others will argue that no person, other than a peace officer, should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon. I'm not staking out a position here, but am looking forward to discussing these issues in my class this fall.

Yesterday, Doonesbury weighed in on the issue of voter fraud.

In the strip, radio host Mark Slackmeyer elicits this statement from supposed GOP consultant Doug Chumley:  "By mandating strict ID requirements, we can disenfranchise the poor, the infirm, students, minorities — anyone who can't be counted on to vote responsibly!"  Mark replies:  "Fascinating!  So instead of making your tent bigger, the strategy now is to make the Democratic tent smaller?"  "Right."  The NY Times recently staked out a similar position on recent Republican-led efforts at stricter voter-ID requirements, in an editorial entitled "The Myth of Voter Fraud."

Is either party really in favor of voter fraud?  Is either party really opposed to making sure that each eligible voter only casts a single vote?  One would think that not, but partisan voices on each side shrilly decry opposing viewpoints.        The arguments seem to boil down to this:

Republicans – 1) It's just not that hard to get a photo ID, and 2) voting is important and should be above suspicion.

Democrats - BUT, 1) it is hard for certain groups to get photo ID's, and 2) voting is important, and before a bunch of people are denied the right to vote by voter ID laws, someone should have to show that there's actually a problem (and no one has yet).

R - WELL, it's just not that hard to get a photo ID, there is voter fraud, and even if their isn't any voter fraud, the perception of voter fraud is damaging to our political system.

D - Here are some nuns and grandparents who were not able to get an ID, and were denied the vote, and you still haven't shown us any actual cases of widespread voter fraud.  And new evidence shows that one's perception of voter fraud is not related to one's likelihood of turning up to vote.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a voter ID law in Indiana, but the Missouri Supreme Court has struck down a similar law on state constitutional law grounds.

I'm not sure where this goes next.  I think the next steps boil down to political calculations.  It may well be that Republicans will scale back efforts to tighten voter ID requirements because they fear a backlash in the upcoming election.  It seems to me that Democrats could make big gains by actually helping voters get satisfactory ID's and then protraying themselves as the party that wants to count every vote.

I will teach this fall, for the first time, a seminar on firearms regulation at the University of Akron School of Law.  I wonder if there will be any interest…

As you all know, it's been an active week for gun control.  And after all the handwringing and huzzahs, what is there really to say about the Supreme Court's 2nd Amendment decision in District of Columbia v. Heller?  Maybe less than you would think.

OK, OK, the decision is a big deal if you live in Washington, D.C.  Heller finds unconstitutional the District's ban on otherwise-lawfully-owned handguns within the home, as well as the law's requirement that rifles and shotguns within the home be disassembled or trigger-locked.  (That loud clicking sound you hear coming from the Mid-Atlantic seaboard is a bunch of previously disassembled long guns being slotted together.  On a related note, do you think the Wizards will become the Bullets again?)  Regulations for legally keeping handguns — America's "quintessential self-defense weapon" in the words of Justice Scalia's majority opinion in Heller — will be forthcoming from the D.C. municipal government, and many Sigs, Glocks, and the like will be purchased.  (But be smart, folks, get a handgun safe to keep them away from little prying hands.)  Check back in this space in several years for consideration of the social science data that have been collected in D.C., and their import to the gun control debate.

But for the rest of us, I'm not sure that much changes, at least for the foreseeable future.  As of now, the Second Amendment has not been interpreted to limit state or local governments — just the federal government.  So, not so fast Chicago and New York City pistol fanatics — it'll be some time before you get your hands on a weapon.  (Unless you want to buy one illegally, which is according to some prominent mayors the main problem we should be addressing now that the individual right/militia question has been answered.)

For people in Ohio, nothing has changed.  We already had an individual right to keep and bear arms under the State Constitution.  Far more important than Heller for our state is, for example, our legislature's recent passage of Senate Bill 184, which brings the "castle doctrine" (largely eliminating civil liability for self-defense shootings that take place in a person's home or vehicle) to Ohio beginning this fall.  Or how about the issue of concealed-carry?  Over 100,000 licenses to carry concealed handguns have been issued in Ohio since April 2004, when the law changed to allow such licensing.  How has concealed carry affected handgun-related-crime, -accidents, and -suicides in Ohio over the past 4 years?  In the wake of the Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University mass shootings in the past year, should concealed carry be allowed on college campuses?  I could go on and on — there are a lot of firearms regulation issues out there, but Heller doesn't tell us anything about most of them.  As my seminar at Akron Law gets going this fall, I'll post some more on firearms regulation issues.  At least I picked something that won't be controversial…