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

« SCOTUSBlog on Parker v. DC | Main | VA newspaper prints lists of CCW permittees »

Brady Campaign and Parker v. DC

Posted by David Hardy · 11 March 2007 11:10 PM

Brady has long been claiming it only backs "reasonable" gun laws. In Parker v. DC, the DC Circuit indicated that maybe handgun registration might be OK, but total prohibition (and requiirement that guns be kept disassembled so as to be useless in self-defense) was not.

Brady's reaction?:

“The 2-1 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia striking down the District of Columbia’s handgun law is judicial activism at its worst. By disregarding nearly seventy years of U.S. Supreme Court precedent, two Federal judges have negated the democratically-expressed will of the people of the District of Columbia and deprived this community of a gun law it enacted thirty years ago and still strongly supports.

“This ruling represents the first time in American history that a Federal appeals court has struck down a gun law on Second Amendment grounds. While acknowledging that ‘reasonable restrictions’ to promote ‘the government’s interest in public safety’ are permitted by the Second Amendment, the two-judge majority substituted its policy preferences for those of the elected representatives of the District of Columbia. ”

· antigun groups

3 Comments | Leave a comment

Joe | March 12, 2007 6:31 AM | Reply

"...the two-judge majority substituted its policy preferences for those of the elected representatives of the District of Columbia."

Isn't one of the things that courts are supposed to do is protect the citizenry from the government?

Bill | March 12, 2007 6:22 PM | Reply

Somebody give the Brady Bunch folks some brown paper bags to breath into so they stop hyperventilating.

"Judicial activism"??? Are they kidding? And how conveniently they refer to "nearly seventy years" of Supreme Court precedent. What about the 160 years BEFORE that?? Could it be that perhaps the last 70 years of Supreme Court "precedent" (a very dubious appellation, being that the Supreme have said precious little about 2 A in the last many decades) flies in the face of all of the history that preceded it?

Their magic "70 year" number starts with their incorrect reading of Miller as setting forth the "collective" position - which it clearly does not.

And exactly how "democratically-expressed" is the "will" of the people of D.C. when polls show time and again that plenty of D.C. residents are against the gun ban?

I could go on, but it's making me see red...

straightarrow | March 12, 2007 9:17 PM | Reply

Do you suppose they would be amenable to a DC law curtailing their rights under the first? Or would they then want the federal courts to rule in opposition to DC's elected representatives?

Only morons and evil people place any credence in the Brady Campaign. NO, that is not a harsh judgment, just fact. It only seems harsh because there are so very many people we know who are not morons who support the stated goals of Brady Campaign and it is unpleasant to realize they are evil. Not mistaken, not of differing opinion, evil. Except of course, for the morons, who are actually few, but to be pitied more than castigated. At least, they are not in it for profit of any type. The same can't be said of the reasonably intelligent on that side. They are evil and intend evil.

All history bears it out.

Leave a comment