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 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Webpage on self-defense conviction | Main | Another webpage on self-defender's conviction »

KY opinion on right to arms

Posted by David Hardy · 27 February 2006 07:28 PM

At the Volokh Conspiracy, Gene Volokh has a post regarding a recent decision of the Kentucky Supreme Court on the right to arms.

The issue is narrow -- whether a felon-in-posession statute violates the state right to arms, and of course the court rules that it does not. But the discussions are indicative of how far the legal aspects of the right to arms have evolved over the past few decades. The court does not blow off the issue, but discusses details such as the state's changing the provision, in the 1890s, from all citizens have the right to all men have the right. It cites law review articles and Fifth Circuit caselaw. The concurring opinion points out that the Pennsylvania minority report called for a federal bill of rights that would forbid disarming citizens "except for crimes committed..." The dissent points out that many felonies do not involve offenses suggestive that the person would misuse a gun (citing a manslaughter conviction of a woman who told a child it was all right to cross the street, following which a driver struck the child), cites Bliss v. Commonwealth, Blackstone, and Justice Thomas' concurrence in Printz, and details the debates in the state constitutional convention of 1890 (including debates over whether to use "men" or "persons," wherein the argument was made that "men" is generic and includes women). The dissenting Justice argues that while the ban might be upheld as to serious felonies, those that would call into question whether a person could be trusted with arms, it should not be upheld as a blanket ban.

The key point to me is that this shows how the right to arms has come to be taken as a serious legal issue -- it's no longer simply a "aw, it must mean the National Guard," or "subject to reasonable regulation, meaning anything short of banning every person from owning any gun" issue.

Leave a comment