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

« Pretty heavy-handed law enforcement | Main | "Signs of Life in the Second Amendment" »

George Will on the Parker case

Posted by David Hardy · 18 March 2007 12:00 PM

Here's his Townhall article.

Oh, and here's a WaPo article on the Parker attorneys. It's a bit of a hit piece (keeps on returning to his home, assets, etc., as if that had any relevance to his case), but actually for the Post is quite favorable.

1 Comment | Leave a comment

dwlawson | March 18, 2007 10:22 PM | Reply

I like the George Will article generally, but he does fall into the trap that I often see of arguing that the First Amendment has primacy because it is First. I think this is fallacious as it wasn't originally the first. The first two amendments in the Bill of Rights were not ratified, leaving the Third Amendment as the First and the Fourth as the Second.

The original First and Second had to do with expanding the House and pay increases. Not exactly inspiring amendments.

Leave a comment