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
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


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
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
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
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Another pre-Civil War enactment | Main | Prof. Reynolds on arms and genocide »

Comment on Bach v. Pataki

Posted by David Hardy · 9 May 2005 02:15 PM

Just below, I discuss Bach v. Pataki, the recent 2d Circuit case. Robert J. Cottrol, Harold Paul Green Research Professor of Law at George Washington University, just emailed an interesting comment:

I got a chance to glance at Beck v. Pataki (only the second amendment section). I may be over optimistic but I think it represents a bit of progress. You have the district court saying that the second amendment is a collective right. You have the second circuit essentially pulling back from that and saying that it is an open question that they do not have to resolve and instead saying that their consideration of the matter is essentially precluded by the incorporation issue. Furthermore the second circuit (which is not a particularly friendly circuit) says that Presser may indeed be problematic precedent but that they are nonetheless bound by it (taking pains to distinquish Engbloom, their third amendment case, noting that the Supremes had not spoken on the third amendment and incorporation). It seems this is a far cry from the district court's claim that the second amendment protects only militias. It is also a far cry from the majority decision in Silveira and what a number of the lower federal courts were doing in the 70s and 80s. I regard this and the DC case (ignoring the second amendment and coming up with a trumped up standing standard) as small (don't break out the champagne just yet) steps forward.

I'd quite agree. In the 1980s, the 2d Circuit easily waved the Second Amendment away. For example, in U.S. v Toner, 728 F.2d 115 (2nd Cir. 1984), an equal protection question was raised with regard to the Gun Control Act's ban on possession by illegal aliens, and the Circuit disposed of the "fundamental right" criterion (if a fundamental right is involved, a court must use a higher level of scrutiny in determining whether equal protection has been violated) with a sentence: "....the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right, cf. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939) (in the absence of evidence showing that firearm has "Some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," Second Amendment does not guarantee right to keep and bear such a weapon)..."

Today, the Circuit has to spend a lot of time hedging, and it declines the obvious opportunity simply to adopt the district court ruling. This suggests it sees the Second Amendment question as up in the air rather than settled.

· contemporary issues

3 Comments

Drew | May 12, 2005 4:37 PM

And this 'up in the air' attitude is a step forward? Wasn't there just a huge study/analysis done a few months back that showed that this was clearly and unecquivicably an individual right?

Drew | May 16, 2005 2:15 PM

Not being a Constitutional scholar, Miller was the sawed off shotgun case wasn't it? Ignoring the obvious fact that the Doughboys had used short barreled cut down shotguns in the trenches of WWI just over 20 years before that, the court declared his weapon illegal because it couldn't be thought of as a military weapon. It's very easy to see Miller from the other side; that we should all only own military weapons, like the dreaded evil Assault Weapons of Doom! Of course that completely ignored the Framers concept of what a militia was: the self-armed male populace of a certain age range, willing to defend their neighbors.

DAVID Wm. BOWDEN | May 17, 2005 7:56 PM

As I recall (without checking it again), defendants defaulted in appearance in the USSC,
and there was nothing in the record qua WWI,
about shotguns nor anything else.
The USSC noted that the 2nd Amendment was to protect the possession of WEAPONS, just weapons,
and there was a question qua whether it cud still function as a weapon, in that mutilated condition,
to be of any service to any militia;
so it was sent back for factual evidence to be taken. USSC did not like the Dist. Ct taking judicial notice that it was still a weapon, without evidence on the record.