Of Arms and the Law
Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home
Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography

ISOcover150x200sm.jpg

I've released my documentary film on the history of the right to arms, "In Search of the Second Amendment." It stars twelve professors of constitutional law, plus Steve Halbrook, David Kopel, Don Kates, and Clayton Cramer. You can order the DVD here. And here's the Wikipedia page on it. SUPREME COURT SPECIAL: additional orders only $10 each.


2nd Amendment Discussions
1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
TheSurvivalistBlog.net
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Survivalist Blog
The BitchGirls
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Visitors since April 1, 2005: Free Web Counter
Free Hit Counter

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 3.15
Site Design by Sekimori

Maybe we should just legalize bribery....

Posted by David Hardy · 20 November 2009 11:02 AM

As it is, Congressional leaders have to buy votes by giving things to a legislator's district, which costs us far more than would a simple bribe. If, for example, the leadership needed a vote to pass health care legislation, I really doubt even a greedy senator would ask for $100,000,000.

Permalink · Comments (4)

Permits for toy guns

Posted by David Hardy · 20 November 2009 10:42 AM

That's going to become a requirement in New South Wales.

Permalink · non-US · Comments (0)

Will the Chicago case lead to a constitutional reawakening?

Posted by David Hardy · 20 November 2009 09:35 AM

That's the question asked in the Wall Street Journal Online.

Permalink · Chicago gun case · Comments (0)

Attempted hijack of Maesrk Alabama

Posted by David Hardy · 19 November 2009 10:41 AM

This time, tho, the ship had armed guards who shot back, and the pirates quickly took several KIAs. Howard Nemerov notes, strangely, the NY Times plays down the rifles and the defense and sounds rather, well, pro-pirate.

Permalink · Comments (1)

7th Circuit questions ban on gun ownership by misdemeanor DV defendants

Posted by David Hardy · 18 November 2009 03:12 PM

There's quite a discussion at the Volokh Conspiracy, regarding today's decision that calls into question the Lautenberg Amendment. The court concludes that the law should be given intermediate scrutiny (in part because the firearm was possessed for hunting rather than self-defense), vacates the conviction and sends that case back for more fact-finding. The wording certainly indicates that the court is taking the challenge seriously and wants the parties to do so as well. Opinion here.

Hat tip to readers Todd, and to Alice Beard.

Permalink · prohibitted persons · Comments (2)

Cory Maye gets a new trial!

Posted by David Hardy · 17 November 2009 05:56 PM

Good news!

Via Instapundit...

UPDATE: here's the opinion. Maye's attorney got a ruling transferring the case to another county, due to local bias. Then he discovered the second county was no better, and moved to have it returned. Instead the trial court moved the case to a third county. The appellate court noted there was a constitutional right to be tried in the county where the offense allegedly occurred, and so, upon Maye's retracting his request to be transferred elsewhere, it should have been returned to the county where the incident occurred, not sent to a third county.

Permalink · Comments (0)

NRA's Chicago brief

Posted by David Hardy · 17 November 2009 08:22 AM

Pdf is here. Between this and Petitioner's brief, I think the ground is covered very well. Petitioner emphasizes incorporation under the privileges or immunities clause (which makes far more sense) and NRA emphasizes incorporation under the due process clause (which is simpler to do).

NRA files, not as an amicus, but as respondent in support of petitioner. In case you wonder what that is -- NRA also filed an appeal (a petition for cert.), but the Supreme Court took the SAF case and not the NRA one, which remains pending. The Clerk ruled that NRA, being a party to the other appeal, was entitled to file as if it were a party (meaning a longer brief, but deadline yesterday). It'd obviously be in support of the Petitioner. But custom is that anyone not a petitioner and not an amicus is a respondent. So they wound up as Respondent in Support of Petitioner).

Permalink · Chicago gun case · Comments (6)

US v. Miller (1939)

Posted by David Hardy · 16 November 2009 07:45 PM

I did some research in National Archives, into US v. Miller. If anyone wonders how the case wound up so messy... here are a pair of telegrams from Miller's attorney to the clerk of the Court, announced that he won't file a brief, nor argue. View image

Permalink · US v. Miller · Comments (16)

Opening brief in Chicago case

Posted by David Hardy · 16 November 2009 02:51 PM

Pdf is here. Very, very, well-written.

Permalink · Chicago gun case · Comments (0)

NY case on destruction of guns

Posted by David Hardy · 15 November 2009 10:49 AM

Pdf here. Plaintiff surrendered his guns to a sheriff, pursuant to a protection order entered in his divorce case. The sheriff destroyed them before the divorce case was over. The Court of Appeals held that he had a property interest in his firearms, the statute authorizing the sheriff to destroy unclaimed firearms after a year only applied to handguns, there was no qualified immunity since a reasonable LEO reading the statute would have known that. It also held that the sheriff's department (rather than just the person who destroyed the firearms) was open to suit since had an office policy allowing such illegal destruction.

Permalink · State legislation · Comments (5)