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
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
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

« Waiting periods for nonlethal defense tools? | Main | Still more on Miller, and its author »

More on Miller

Posted by David Hardy · 5 November 2005 09:01 AM

James Bardswell's incomparable pages have a transcription of the court file and government's brief in US v. Miller. It's interesting to note how the government's position, as well, appears to have suffered from the incredible speed the Court demanded at end of term.

The government's brief does not clearly set out the different theories it argued. Today, you'd split the three alternate theories into three headings. The government's brief simply lumps them into one argument, going from (1) right to bear arms is subject to reasonable regulation (argument from common law, and with historical flaws); (2) right to arms is a collective right, citing Blaksley decision and misciting others; (3) that is blended into a third position, the one the Court bought, that "arms" relates to arms suitable for military use and not those useful only in brawls and such.

As further evidence of haste -- the government mis-cites the key case for collective rights as State v. Blaksley rather than the correct City of Salina v. Blaksley, suggesting that the drafter of the brief was working from memory and never went back to cite-check even the most important cases cited for its arguments.

· US v. Miller

Comments

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)