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

« Reflection on American academia | Main | When deer attack.... »

My op-ed in Sunday paper

Posted by David Hardy · 4 June 2006 10:42 AM

The paper here has a big debate on the right to arms. In print, it's 2/3 of the first page of the Opinions section.

If it sounds a bit disjointed -- neither of us knew what the other was writing, and the result was trimmed down a bit. It wasn't a real debate: we were never in the same room, and each answered the question without seeing what the other person had said.

2 Comments | Leave a comment

Rivrdog | June 5, 2006 2:31 AM | Reply

Did you actually have to face Glicksman? He makes about as much sense as a snake oil salesman, and on his last statement, used one of the best examples of a bad syllogism that I have ever seen in print.

King of the Cows | June 5, 2006 7:11 AM | Reply

Wow, Glicksman blatantly misrepresents the holding in the Miller case and I think it was he (not the Star) that quoted extensively from the Brady Center. I don't know if his response was edited, but it certainly gives a false impression of how the Supreme Court actually ruled.

Leave a comment