Two important stories about courts--one on the environment, the other on judicial discipline. Then, a sober look at numbers and not fearmongering.
A worrisome ruling by the Supreme Court …
This is not something that has made a terrific splash, but I find it worrisome.
The nation's Supreme Court recently turned down a request to hear a case brought by some Colorado municipalities against a couple oil companies that operate here regarding those companies being liable for climate change.
In so doing, the decision has now been kicked down to the state level and those communities (yes, Boulder is in fact one of them in case you didn't guess it already) have already started the process to take the oil companies to state courts. See more in the CPR article linked below.
If this were any other state, with any other state Supreme Court, I would not be as worried. But this is Colorado baby with Colorado's liberal-rubberstamp Supreme Court.
The kind of ruling that the oil and gas companies are liable for climate change (something not too far removed from the realm of possibility here in Colorado) would have HUGE effects on our economy and way of life.
If you weren't worried before, take a sec and imagine the ramifications and my guess is you will be.
https://www.cpr.org/2023/04/24/boulder-climate-lawsuit-suncor-exxon-mobil/
Another story about the judiciary that maybe didn’t get a lot of headlines, but can have big impacts (and is therefore worth watching).
I haven't updated on this topic in a bit (and, to be honest, have not been watching the bill(s) closely), but I saw the article linked below and figured an update was in order.
In addition to the bill I have posted about in the past, the Assembly apparently has been working on a couple others which the article below details.
The three bills are listed below in the same order that they appear in the Colorado Politics article. Of the three, I hold out the most hope for HCR23-1001 (this will be a resolution-- a measure that will appear on the 2024 ballot, if it passes, for our vote).
I'm not saying the other two have no merit, I just see their effect as more minor. I'm open to other thoughts, however, so if you see things differently and want to speak up, please do so for everyone's benefit.
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/colorado-politics/senate-committee-passes-judicial-reform-measures-with-key-changes/article_7ecb5cfc-b9b7-5119-9f1d-b5152ab3b44d.html
http://leg.colorado.gov/bills/HCR23-1001
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb23-1019
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/HB23-1205
Numbers, and not scare tactics, on the trauma caused by different types of firearms.
The link below is from Mr. Kopel's page and it was his written testimony sent in against HB1230, the so-called Assault Weapons ban.
The bill is dead and so the testimony against it is moot** but I wanted to share the link for what it contains starting on page 8. In this section of the testimony, Mr. Kopel details why the claim that somehow AR15 bullets are more deadly is erroneous.
I'll leave it to you to read up on the technical detail, but I can abstract some of the principles involved here.
--An overarching principle to remember is that any gun, at all, can cause injury or death. Ranking one gun as more or less deadly or worrisome is problematic because there are numerous factors that control the tissue damage caused by bullets.
--If anyone does make the claim that "gun X is more deadly", you should look carefully at how they support that claim and what they base it on. If they don't share that information with the claim, ask. Anyone who is honest should freely give their sources.
--The first thing to consider with trauma is the energy involved. As I tell my physics students: to a decent, first-pass approximation and all other things being equal, the amount of trauma sustained by any means will scale with the energies involved. Thus, you can roughly figure that a fall from 15 feet will be about 3 times as much trauma as a fall from 5.
When it comes to bullets, the energies involved are kinetic--the energy of movement. Kinetic energy looks like mass x speed^2. It depends directly on both: if the mass of the bullet goes up the kinetic energy does too, and if the speed (muzzle velocity) of the bullet goes up, the kinetic energy goes up. The squared complicates things, however. If you double the mass of a bullet, all other things being equal, its energy doubles. If you double the speed, the energy goes up by a factor of 4.
So, in considering injury, you can figure that the muzzle velocity is much more a factor than is the bullet size. This plays out in the screenshot attached (coming from the testimony). If you compare handguns (blue to blue) and long guns (red to red), you'll note a huge difference in energy. If you then take note of the bullet weight you'll see some of the long gun bullets are lighter but have more kinetic energy because they go faster.
--The upshot of what I just wrote is that long guns tend to be able to cause more injury than handguns.
--There is nothing unique or more deadly about an AR-15 compared to a hunting rifle. In fact, the AR-15 bullets often carry less energy than other long guns (again, see the list in the report).
--In addition to bullet kinetic energy there are numerous other (but harder to quantify) variables that affect injury from a gunshot. What is the shape of the bullet? Where did it enter and with what path? How close was the gun?
--There is also gun type to be considered. To give you a sense of what I mean, I'll take a quote from the testimony: "At shorter distances, the shotgun produces the most devastating injuries, eventhough the velocity of its rounds is about the same as handgun bullets. Dr. Facklerobserves that at close range 'the [twelve-gauge] shotgun (using either buckshot or arifled slug) is far more likely to incapacitate than is a .223 rifle. The shotgun issimply a far more powerful weapon.'"
When we talk about guns, when we talk about how deadly one is relative to another, we must tread with care. As you can see from the above (and from the testimony), this is not as simple as saying an AR - 15 OR ANY OTHER GUN is somehow exceptional in the damage it can cause. There are too many confounding variables here.
Important things to keep that in mind and remind others of when you talk about guns and gun violence.
** I want you to note that it is moot FOR NOW and not forever. The Democrat's hold on unchecked power in this state is likely going to be in place for at least 4 more years. They have all the time in the world to put forward things like this in the future. Think about all the times a bill didn't make it one year but the supporters kept at it and then it passed.
https://davekopel.org/Testimony/Kopel-testimony-HB1230-so-called-assault-weapons.pdf
***Related:
An excellent op ed by a school shooting survivor re. the harm that this Assembly's session has done on your Second Amendment rights.
Worth a read, worth a share.
https://gazette.com/opinion/guest-column-gun-legislation-will-undermine-rights-of-law-abiding-citizens/article_8428acbe-e379-11ed-868b-3f7aaafc83c4.html