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 6.8.3
Site Design by Sekimori

« Media bias and the rave shooting | Main | ATFE abuse hearings »

Selective application of judicial temperment

Posted by David Hardy · 29 March 2006 10:15 AM

Justice Scalia is taking criticism for, inter alia, saying that if a person is captured on a battlefield he deserves to be in a POW camp such as Gitmo, when Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, challenging the Gitmo detentions, is before the Court.

My friend Bob Dowlut points out an interesting event In the Qulici v. Morton Grove case, decided by the 7th Circuit.

Judge Bauer, who wrote the opinion, went on Miller's Court [a tv program] before the case was argued and decided. Bauer said on the tv program he would uphold the handgun ban. He was asked by motion to recuse himself -- he'd not only commented on the merits, but announced his vote, prior to argument. There was no recusal. Bob noted this in his subsequent law review article, Federal and State Guarantees of the Right to Arms, 15 Univ. of Dayton Law Review 59 (1989), at page 70 footnote 77. Here's a link, altho the footnote formatting is imperfect.

As he points out, the media made no note of it. The case was just about gun owners, not about terrorists or other favored classes.

1 Comment | Leave a comment

The Mechanic | March 30, 2006 1:41 PM | Reply

This is Liberal criticism. Nothing new Consider the source. Working Asets. They think a duck hunt is "notorious".

Leave a comment