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

« No retreat law proposed in PA | Main | Unintentional discharges at LAPD »

NSA survellience opinion

Posted by David Hardy · 17 August 2006 03:41 PM

There's an interesting discussion of the district court ruling (actually, several discussions) over at Volokh.com.

Just two comments:

1. It illustrates how "standing" tends to work out to "if the court likes your case, you have standing, otherwise you don't." Plenty of firearm and other cases have been dumped on standing grounds, on the basis that "I won't do something because it's against the law and I fear prosecution" isn't enough. Here, "somebody in another country won't do something (talk to me) because they fear they might be overheard and prosecuted" is held to create standing.

2. In order to win on standing, plaintiffs had to argue, and the court accept, that the program is functioning as intended. Namely, terrorists and possible terrorists are unable to use the telephone for fear of being overheard and prosecuted.