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 6.6.2
Site Design by Sekimori

« UN may downgrade disarmament program | Main | Brady Campaign and cooking the books »

Kicking *** and taking numbers

Posted by David Hardy · 21 January 2007 07:05 PM

Five antigun types criticize Prof. Reynolds' NY Times piece on laws mandating gun ownership, and he fires back.

Kirk Parker had the following comment, blocked for some reason by the spam filter:

Prof Reynolds also needs to directly address this nonsense, spouted by letter writer #5, SUNY Poli Sci professor Robert J. Spitzer:

"And the “armed populace” mandated in the Militia Act of 1792 and other early laws “requiring adult male citizens to own guns” did so because they were, according to the law, to “be enrolled in the militia” controlled by the government — the opposite of the vigilantism Mr. Reynolds extols."

Notice Spitzer doesn't really make the laughable claim that militia members didn't own and keep their own weapons, before, during, and after militia duty--but it might be read that way, so I'm left to wonder if it's just less-than-clear wording on Spitzer's part, or if he intends to convey that misapprehension.

· Self defense

2 Comments | Leave a comment

HKL | January 21, 2007 10:16 PM | Reply

Thanks so much for the references to Reynolds article and his references on gun control hype in the CDC.

Lergnom | January 22, 2007 10:58 AM | Reply

I hope Prof. Reynolds sent his rebuttal to the paper, as well as blogging it.

Leave a comment