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 6.8.3
Site Design by Sekimori

« Parker v. DC decision in pdf | Main | CCW permitee holders stop street shooter »

WaPo raves about DC decision

Posted by David Hardy · 10 March 2007 10:32 AM

Here's the editorial.

"this radical ruling will inevitably mean more people killed and wounded..."

"it was not completely unexpected, given the unconscionable campaign, led by the National Rife Association and abetted by the Bush administration, to broadly reinterpret the Constitution so as to give individuals Second Amendment rights. "

[At least they do give a mention to the Cato Institute, which actually filed the suit and handled the appeal. It's quite obvious that the Post hates the Second Amendment, and hates the NRA, so anytime it covers the first it has to insert the second].

" Nor, for that matter, would it serve the nation's interest to leave this dangerous ruling unchallenged."

I could be wrong, but I don't recall the Post ever (and I lived in DC and read it for nearly ten years) going this wild over a court decision. It's amusing that in the entire editorial attacking the decision, not one mention is made of its reasoning or basis. The Post's only concern is with its result.

· media

5 Comments | Leave a comment

Refugee | March 10, 2007 11:55 AM | Reply

Four pages of comments, overwhelmingly pro-RKBA, and against the editorial.

WaPo has seriously misjudged their audience.

denton | March 10, 2007 11:55 AM | Reply

"...a federal appeals court turned its back on nearly 70 years of Supreme Court precedent..."

So says the Washington Post.

The line is taken directly from the Brady press release on the subject.

Excuse me, but not speaking on the subject for 70 years is actually nothing like 70 years of precedent.

Mark | March 10, 2007 1:22 PM | Reply

Just a quick note here, the action was not brought by the Cato Institute and I can not find anywhere that Cato even filed a amici curiae with the court. Robert Levy is a fellow with Cato and funding his involvement out of pocket. Even if the WaPo can not get the facts right, we can.

Letalis | March 10, 2007 2:36 PM | Reply

Now five pages of overwhelminly pro-RKBA comments. Libs are going to start hating the internet again.

straightarrow | March 12, 2007 9:06 PM | Reply

I don't know why the WAPO hates the NRA. Hell, the NRA, was on their side on this. Don't believe me? Go here. http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20030722-093717-6859r.htm

Thanks to The War on Guns for the tip.

It appears the NRA doesn't like its profit from the problem interfered with by any chance of a solution.

Leave a comment