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

« Pro-gun bills moving in AZ | Main | At last I get recognition! »

The Miller behind US v. Miller

Posted by David Hardy · 21 May 2008 01:45 PM

Story here.

· US v. Miller

Comments

It strikes me that what this article is trying to do is substitute Miller (certainly NOT a sympathetic character!) for Heller, who arguably IS.

What the Heller case is going to do is make Miller insignificant, and this is something the gun controllers don't like.

Posted by: Hartley at May 21, 2008 10:06 PM

But what it does do is make plain that the case never should have be decided. When only one side is represented and that side is the government, whatever the outcome it can't be valid.

Imagine a case on any other subject. Would the Left accept or even concider it. No body would.

Just how many SC cases exist where the defendant had nobody there? I bet the list is small.

The SC wanted to validate the NFA. They used this case to do it because there would be no defendant to show that the NFA was unconstitutional. It was a blantant misuse of Judicial power.

SC Cases since then have shown that the NFA is even more unconstitutional today then it was then. No taxing a right, etc.

Posted by: Dan Hamilton at May 22, 2008 10:07 AM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)