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

« Joyce, Obama, and the Heller case | Main | Prof. tries to ban empty holsters »

4th Amendment case

Posted by David Hardy · 23 April 2008 09:23 AM

The Supremes just decided Virginia v. Moore. Defendant was caught driving on a suspended license. State law provided that he be given a summons, rather than arrested, for that. Officers instead arrested him, and a search incident to arrest uncovered drugs.

The Court, per Scalia, holds that a violation of such a statute does not a 4th Amendment violation make. Police had probable cause and the arrest was not "unreasonable." Justice Ginsburg concurs, suggesting it is a little closer historical case than the majority opinion suggests.

· General con law

Comments

This simply shows that the "left" and the "right" both share an equal fixation on the interest of the "State" over that of the law, individuals or the Bill of Rights.

Posted by: gp[martin at April 23, 2008 05:13 PM

Amen, GP

Posted by: straightarrrow at April 23, 2008 09:26 PM

"The military round is also handicapped by the US being signatory to the Hague Convention, thereby excluding hollow points for use."

We did not sign the Hague Convention of 1899 that prohibits expanding bullets but we give it lip service anyway. We do, however, violate it's intent by deliberately designing our projectiles to violently fragment.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2008 11:20 AM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)