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

« Proposal to bar gun sales to those on terrorism watch list | Main | Courthouse Forum »

Gun charges dropped against Jim Webb aide

Posted by David Hardy · 27 April 2007 09:25 PM

Story here.

What's interesting is that (as I understand the law, anyway) Congress has exempted the Capitol from DC law. So provided that he wasn't questioned, or clammed up, they might indeed have had a problem proving a case against him. After all, if he had just taken the gun out of one office, left the Capitol, wandered around the lawn, and come back in, he would have broken no law. That wasn't what happened, but disproving it beyond a reasonable doubt might have been a problem. (Not that that stopped them, years ago, from giving quite a bit of flak to Ted Kennedy's bodyguard. But then that bodyguard showed up with a lot more than one pistol!)

2 Comments | Leave a comment

Letalis | April 28, 2007 6:04 AM | Reply

Uh...yeah...it was an evidence problem. Or maybe the statute is unconstitutionally vague.

This guy was never, NEVER, going to be prosecuted. He is in "the system" and unless there is a huge public outcry or the need for a politically ambitious prosecutor to sacrifice someone for his own upward mobility, those in the system are never going to throw one of their own over the side.

Look at the recent East St. Louis machine gun case. Several cops and a local doctor get arrested for possession of illegal machine guns. The charges against the cops were recently dropped because the statute is allegedly unconstitutionally vague as applied to them. They did a few hours of community service and are now back on the donut shop beat. The doctor on the other hand is awaiting trial.

http://www.subguns.com/boards/sword.cgi?read=852591

Jonas Salk | April 28, 2007 2:53 PM | Reply

Another double-post, Mr. Hardy.

Leave a comment