Of Arms and the Law
Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home
Get an autographed copy of our Heller brief! $7.99 incl. S&H
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
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

« Student sends email, gets suspended | Main | Pack vs. herd, 1886 »

SCOTUS review of 18 USC 924(c)(1)

Posted by David Hardy · 13 May 2007 01:24 PM

18 US Code ยง924(c)(1)(A) provides for an additional, consecutive, five year mandatory minimum if the defendant "uses or carries a firearm" in "any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime." (The punishment escalates if the defendant actually brandishes or fires it).

I just received an amicus brief from Gun Owners' Foundation, in the pending Supreme Court case of Watson v. United States. (Order granting cert. here. It appears that Watson was the recipient of the firearm in the exchange; he talked to an informant about buying a gun, and the informant helpfully suggested that he knew someone willing to sell one in exchange for drugs. The core question is whether a defendant who swaps drugs for a gun has "used" the gun in a drug trafficing crime, and the amicus argues that using it as payment is not "using" it within the meaning of the statute. It notes that the Circuits have split 2-2 on the issue.

· Gun Control Act of 68

Comments

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)