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

« §1983 and statutes of limitations | Main | Boston Gun Range may be shut down »

DC Ct of Apps cites 2nd Amendment in Gitmo ruling

Posted by David Hardy · 21 February 2007 12:23 PM

Clayton Cramer has the story. The DC court invoked Johnson v. Eisentrager, a Supreme Court ruling that reasoned that Nazis detained after the war did not have Bill of Rights protections:

"If the Fifth Amendment confers its rights on all the world . . . [it] would mean that during military occupation irreconcilable enemy elements, guerrilla fighters, and ‘werewolves’ [Nazi guerrillas] could require the American Judiciary to assure them freedoms of speech, press, and assembly as in the First Amendment, right to bear arms as in the Second, security against ‘unreasonable’ searches and seizures as in the Fourth, as well as rights to jury trial as in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.”

2 Comments | Leave a comment

P. Froward | February 22, 2007 7:01 PM | Reply

I've talked to seemingly reasonable liberals -- friends, people I know well, who don't display any clear signs of massive cognitive impairment in ordinary life -- who believe precisely that we should accord al Qaeda, wherever we find them, all the rights of American citizens. Which is a lot more rights than they'll grant our own troops, of course, should they happen to be accused of anything.

Remember when we clobbered Zarqawi, there were morons weeping about how he didn't get a fair trial.

Glad to hear the Supremes have clarified this one.

Jim | February 23, 2007 4:19 PM | Reply

Actually, that decision ws from the DC Appeals Court, not the Supreme Court. That will be the next step, should they choose to take the case.

Leave a comment