Can Green Lantern Carry a Gun?

By

-

June 9, 2017

After Hal Jordan and Sinestro (who is temporarily made a Green Lantern again) seemingly die after a fight with Black Hand their combined Green Lantern ring seeks out a new bearer: it finds Simon Baz.

Baz however is busy… being interrogated by the FBI. Turns out he was accidentally involved in a car bombing (long story, see the events of Green Lantern: Rise of the Third Army for the whole thing).

Simon goes on to prove himself a Green Lantern in his own right and takes over as GL of sector 2814 (Earth). Among his other distinctions he is known as the only Green Lantern to carry a gun. Simon has taken flack about his gun from everyone from Hal to Kilowog, but the issue was brought to a head when he met Batman (who’s stance on guns is well known) in the recent Green Lantern/Batman crossover.

Simon and his partner Jessica Cruz (also a Green Lantern) are called to Gotham City to help the caped crusader solve a rash of criminal activity caused by fear. No more spoilers, check out Green Lanterns #16 and 17 for the whole story. Suffice to say that while in Gotham Simon meets Commissioner Jim Gordon.

Gordon is less than pleased to see Simon’s gun and tells him he can only carry it in Gotham with an open carry license. While there is no federal law that restricts open carrying of handguns several states have restricted the ability to open carry handguns without a permit or banned the practice all together. Being a fictional city there’s never been a clear indication of which state Gotham City is in, however there seem to be two front runners: New Jersey according to several sources in the comics, or Illinois according to artist Neil Adams who says the city is based on Chicago. Both states restrict the carrying of firearms with proper licensing, so Gordon’s line “Not unless it [the gun] comes with an open carry license from the Gotham City Registrar”, doesn’t narrow things down. See N.J. Rev. Stat. § 2C:58-4(a) for permitting requirements in NJ and 430 ILCS 66 for requirements in Il. Either way it seems Simon is in violation.

However, we don’t need to guess at what state Gotham is in since we know there are two real world places that Simon spends time in. He lives in Dearborn, Michigan and frequently visits his partner Jessica Cruz at her home outside of Portland, Oregon. Michigan’s open carry law is complicated by the release of Michigan State Police Legal Update No. 86, which seems to contradict Section 28.422 of Michigan’s laws and rectifying these two is well beyond the scope of this blog post. Plus I live in Oregon and until Peter Parker moves back here we only get this one comic book hero to look at with our state laws so… that’s what we’re going to do.

Oregon’s gun laws are found in ORS section 166, specifically 166.250 Unlawful Possession of Firearms. So long as a person is over 18 and the firearm is not concealed it is lawful to carry. Meaning Simon is ok to strap his pistol to his hip and visit Jessica for pancakes, right? Well, not exactly. When we are first introduced to Simon Baz in Green Lantern v.5 #0 we find out he’s got a history of illegal street racing and stealing cars. We never get an answer as to if Simon has ever been convicted before (since he’s being held in the DC universe’s version of Guantanamo there are some other concerns and the GL ring busts him out before we get too far into the case), but it strongly implied throughout the series that he has a criminal record. What we do know is that if he has a record it comes either from the street racing accident that results in his brother-in-law’s coma or for stealing cars. Stealing cars is a felony offense in Michigan and street racing that results in a serious injury would almost certainly be charged as felony reckless driving. If Simon has a felony record then he would be violating ORS 166.270 Possession of Weapons by Certain Felons, a class C felony when involving a firearm. So Simon would be better off leaving his gun at home.

Oddly, although Simon would likely be prohibited from wearing a pistol on his hip in most places he frequents (assuming that his felony record is more than just a suggestion), weapon laws are tied to specific terms like firearm or knife. So he’d be fine to keep his Power Ring which, while it may be the most powerful weapon in the DC Universe, is not a weapon by most legal definitions.

Wonder Woman Podcast

By

Josh Gilliland

-

June 6, 2017

0

Jessica and I loved Wonder Woman. We sat down to discuss the new film, memories of the 1970s TV series, and the legal issues with compelling someone to incriminate themselves. We touch on the causes of World War I, war crimes, and a host of other topics in our review of Wonder Woman.

Celebrating the 10th Anniversary of Illusive Comics

By

Josh Gilliland

-

June 4, 2017

0

Jack Yang and I both shop at Illusive Comics. We joined the owner Anna, and her great team, in celebrating their 10th Anniversary. We recorded a special podcast where we discussed how Illusive is a community for geeks, thoughts on recent comics, and the privacy issues with Mantis disclosing Star-Lord’s feelings for Gamora in Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol 2. And yes, we had cake.

Wonder Woman, Seventies Style!

By

Jessica_alegalgeek

-

June 1, 2017

1

The final countdown is on until I finally get to see the Wonder Woman movie Friday night and these last few days are going far too slow. To help me make it through, I’ve decided to watch the show that made me fall in love with Wonder Woman in the first place: Lynda Carter’s Wonder Woman TV show.

I don’t remember much from the show (besides that spin) but it created a lifelong obsession. Thanks to that show and the iconic superhero that is Wonder Woman, I now have Wonder Woman comics, tee shirts, toys, mugs, action figures, garbage cans, and lunch boxes (“winning” that lunch box on eBay taught me to never again mix wine and bidding). And I’ve been waiting for a Wonder Woman movie for decades. I’m really excited that Patty Jenkins directed this movie although I hoped for years that the Joss Whedon/Lauren Graham version would happen.

Watching a TV show from the ’70s is fun for a lot of reasons. First, the cheesiness of these old sitcoms is amazing. Second, you get to play “I know that person.” I didn’t know that Cloris Leachman played Queen Hippolyta! And I was shocked to see Henry Gibson of Laugh In fame show up as an Allied spy. Even Anne Ramsey (Mama Fratelli from The Goonies) showed up as a cab driver! Third, it’s nice to see a show from the days when we all agreed that Nazis and fascism were evil. The only depressing part of watching the first episode is that Wonder Woman’s girl power statements are as important, relevant, and disputed today as they were forty years ago.

Wonder Woman’s lasso is also pretty awesome. I’ve often said that Wonder Woman and her fight for truth and justice represents the good side of the legal system (while Darth Vader represents the Dark Side). In particular, her lasso, with its ability to get anyone to tell the truth, would obviously be hugely useful during depositions or in court.

There are two major constitutional issues with using her lasso, however, to coerce a confession that would not otherwise be given. First, the use of the lasso on an unwilling witness or party to get them to confess would violate the Fifth Amendment‘s protection against self-incrimination. The Constitution’s Due Process Clause (of the 14th Amendment) also requires that a confession be voluntarily given — the defendant’s will must not be “overborne by the circumstances surrounding the giving of a confession.” Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 434 (2000). Under the Due Process clause, if the confession is “not the product of a rational intellect and free will, the confession was coerced and is inadmissible.” Id. As the Supreme Court has noted, both the American and English legal systems have long believed that a voluntary confession is credible while an involuntary confession should be rejected. In support of this position, the Court quoted an English opinion from 1783: “A free and voluntary confession is deserving of the highest credit, because it is presumed to flow from the strongest sense of guilt … but a confession forced from the mind by the flattery of hope, or by the torture of fear, comes in so questionable a shape … that no credit ought to be given to it; and therefore it is rejected. Id. (quoting King v. Warickshall, 1 Leach 262, 263–264, 168 Eng. Rep. 234, 235 (K.B. 1783)).

Our legal system depends on parties and witnesses telling the truth. We don’t have any magical lassos, but over the years, courts have considered using our world’s less perfect forms of truth telling tools to assist with them in finding the truth. In the trial of the Aurora shooter, for example, the court ordered that the prosecution could use a “truth serum” if the shooter relied on an insanity defense, but only to determine if he was actually insane at the time of the shooting. This highly unusual order raised legal concerns because of the Constitutional issues mentioned above. In fact, in 1963 the Supreme Court specifically held that confessions brought about by “truth serums” are not the product of a free intellect and are therefore inadmissible. See Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 307–08 (1963), overruled on other grounds by Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1 (1992). Medical experts also raised concerns about whether such a serum would actually be effective and/or reliable. Likewise, the efficiency of lie detector tests has also caused many jurisdictions to ban their use, although there are still a few locations where they can be used under certain circumstances.

So our legal system is left without a Wonder Woman or her lasso. The rest of us will just have to make do with our Wonder Woman toys to inspire us to keep up the fight for truth and justice! And hopefully none of us lawyers will end up bound and gagged without a Wonder Woman to rescue us (seriously, did Steve Trevor get tied up in every episode of Wonder Woman?)!

Star Wars 40th Anniversary Podcasts

By

Josh Gilliland

-

May 25, 2017

0

Happy Anniversary Star Wars! The Far Away Galaxy from a long time ago has inspired lawyers and judges for 40 years. We recorded three podcasts to celebrate the Ruby Anniversary with friends who all love Star Wars. Join us for lawyers geeking out over why people love Star Wars, legal analysis, and more.

Enjoy, and remember, the Force will be with you. Always.

Baby Groot – From Custody to Child Endangerment with Nuclear Weapons

By

Josh Gilliland

-

May 18, 2017

0

Baby Groot is adorable…and a dancing his way into great legal issues.

Just who is Baby Groot’s legal guardian? All of the Guardians acted as Groot’s guardian. Who would a court actually appoint as the guardian?

Baby Groot was grown from the remains of the original Groot. The law is not designed for adoption of talking trees, so a court could view the original Groot as the “parent” of Baby Groot. As such, Baby Groot would be an orphan.

A court would not appoint all of the Guardians of the Galaxy as the parents of Baby Groot, as custody is awarded to either a couple or single person. One likely option is for Rocket Raccoon to be the guardian of Groot. However, that would mean a court is deciding whether a scientifically enhanced raccoon could be the legal guardian of a sentient tree. A court on Earth likely would decline jurisdiction, unless Peter Quill was the petitioner. Gamora and Drax would also be cases of first impression for extraterrestrials to seek adoption of an infant tree.

States generally require a preliminary assessment on the eligibility of adoptive parents by examining their social history, criminal records, and the capability to meet the child’s needs. See, In re Carl R. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1051, 1062–1063. Moreover, the adoptive parents must understand their legal and financial responsibilities in adopting a child. Id.

Rocket, Star-Lord, Gamora, and Drax, all had substantial criminal records, which would raise significant red flags for any adoption. However, the Guardians had been pardoned for past crimes and their records expunged. Their individual social histories are also complex, with bar fights, space pirates, and galactic war criminals. Moreover, how is it even remotely safe to have a child dancing during a fight with an inter-dimensional monster?

Child Protective Services would agree Rocket Raccoon and Star-Lord had a bad plan: Giving Baby Groot a nuclear weapon in order to stop a galaxy threatening celestial being. The weapon had one button for a 5-minute detonation and a second button to immediately set off the bomb. Baby Groot demonstrated a lack of understanding for which button to push, raising significant issues of child endangerment.

“Child endangerment” includes situations where a person “willfully causes or permits that child to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health is endangered.” CA Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a). While there are [thankfully] no court opinions with children entrusted with a nuclear weapons directly on point, most judges would agree giving a toddler a weapon of mass destruction with a dead man switch, would endanger the health of the child. No expert testimony would be required.

The Guardians of the Galaxy have a substantial number of warning signs that go against entrusting them with raising a child. That being said, each one demonstrated concern for Baby Groot’s well-being, from battles with monsters to wearing a seatbelt. Moreover, they provided a nurturing home, such as Drax holding Groot while he fell asleep. A court might overlook the issues, as no family is perfect, and who better to raise Baby Groot, then those who saved the galaxy twice?

Yondu Was Right to Not Give Star-Lord to Ego in 1988

By

Josh Gilliland

-

May 12, 2017

0

The first Guardians of the Galaxy film established that the Ravager Yondu was hired by Peter Quill’s father, to bring the young Peter to his biological father, after the death of Peter’s mother. Yondu admitted he breached his contract with Quill’s father on the grounds the father was a “jackass.” No rules on anticipatory breach of contract have a “jackass” exception, but Yondu was correct to do so on other grounds.

As we learned in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2, there were other reasons for Yondu to not return Peter to his father. Spoilers ahead, so do not read further if you have not seen Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2.

Meredith Quill stated on her deathbed that she intended Peter to live with his grandfather until Peter’s father returned for the boy. Meredith was not married to Ego the Living Planet, and it is not clear if Ego ever met Meredith’s friends or family. Moreover, it is unstated whether Meredith listed Ego on Peter’s birth certificate. As Meredith had sole custody of Peter, it is reasonable she could have stated in a will her intent that Peter’s father should have custody of Peter. However, if Meredith had known the truth about Ego, she would not have ever intended Peter live with his biological father.

The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act is enacted in every state in the United States. As Peter was born and raised in Missouri, The Show Me State would have been Peter’s “home state” for a court to decide who had custody of Peter. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.445(4).

Ego would have had multiple challenges in bringing a petition to assert his parental rights over Peter. First, hiring mercenaries to kidnap a child from Earth would qualify as “reprehensible conduct,” and a court would decline to exercise jurisdiction over Ego’s case. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.475(1). Moreover, courts will not give a person custody of a child if they have caused the death of another child through abuse or neglect. See, CA Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300(f). The mass grave of intergalactic children would be Exhibit A to Ego’s unsuitability as a parent. Additionally, a Missouri Court would not be obligated to recognize an “out-of-state” decree from Ego himself, as the United States does not have any treaties or formal relations with the Living Planet. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.500. As there were limited legal means for Ego to take custody of Peter, Ego resorted to hiring Yondu to kidnap Peter from the lawful care of his grandfather.

Yondu had been hired multiple times by Ego to bring Ego’s children to his planet. Ego further represented that the children would not suffer; as such, Yondu arguably did not have actual notice that all of the children he brought to Ego the Living Planet were going to be killed. However, kidnapping children was one of the forbidden crimes for any Ravager (and parents in the United States). Moreover, Yondu should have been alerted that something was wrong with delivering multiple children to never be seen again to Ego. While Yondu could have justified to himself he was helping reunite children with their father, at the end of the day he was wrongly kidnapping children.

Yondu arguably had constructive notice that Ego’s children were being killed, because of the number of children who disappeared after being delivered to Ego. If Yondu suspected that Peter Quill was going to be killed, not delivering Peter to Ego was the correct action. Furthermore, there is a legal exception to kidnapping if a person takes or conceals a child in order to protect that child from “imminent danger.” See, CA Pen. Code, § 207, subds. (f)–(f)(1). Yondu could have reasonably believed he was in a better position to protect Peter from Ego than Peter’s grandfather, because Ego was an “imminent danger” to Peter’s life. However, no Missouri judge would ever rule in favor of a child being raised by a space pirate instead of a grandfather, in order to avoid the child being used by the biological father to conquer the universe, who also murdered the mother of the child in the custody dispute.

Yondu made the right decision in breaching his contract [criminal conspiracy] with Ego the Living Planet, albeit extremely late after multiple other crimes had been committed. Despite those shortcomings and teasing the Ravager crew wanted to eat Peter, Yondu seemed to be a good dad for a space pirate.