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

« Anit-confiscation bill and its 14th Amendment implications | Main | Roger Sherman's version of the Second Amendment »

Legislative history

Posted by David Hardy · 26 July 2006 01:22 PM

ViaInstanpundit comes this commentary on legislative history. It's in regard to the Supreme's recent Hamdan decision... apparently, there were large parts of the "Senate debate" on the legislation that were inserted afterwards.

Not that that's anything new. Congresscritters "revise and correct" their remarks afterwards. As in rewriting them to say what they figure they should have said, or inserting entire speeches that were never given. I was present when House and Senate debated the Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986, and (1) Kennedy's speeches were absolutely incoherent, to the point where for minutes at a time you couldn't figure out what he was arguing... needless to say, the printed record shows them well-organized. (2) on the critical question of 922(o), inserted on the House side and construed to ban post-ban machineguns, the sponsor's "who could be against machineguns?" became "who could be against my bill to ban machineguns?"

And to think there's criticism of Bill Clinton's "it depends upon what your definition of 'is' is" testimony... in Washington, that's an apt response. You can have legislative debates that never occurred, with responses that were never given, and of course policy statements that don't reflect any policy that will ever be followed.

Leave a comment