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

« Arizona courts in the old days | Main | IED detection »

Brady Center to post critque of Parker decision

Posted by David Hardy · 17 May 2007 08:29 PM

Brady Center has posted a webpage attacking the Parker case.

Hmm. The Parker decision is "fantasy," not to mention "inconsistency, flawed reasoning, distortion of binding precedent, and misunderstood historical materials"? Then DC should be rushing to file a petition for cert., rather than agonizing over the call.

UPDATE: A nice illustration of Sandy Levinson's point that, on this issue, most thinking does a 180 degree shift relative to other political/constitutional thought. Here we have Brady Campaign, an organization that (I can speculate, but probably accurately) draws 95%+ of its support from persons who think of themselves as liberal ... complaining of "activist judges" and calling for a return to "strict constructionism" in a manner that gives one memories of the Nixon Administration.

9 Comments | Leave a comment

Rudy DiGiacinto | May 17, 2007 9:41 PM | Reply

The rebuttal of the Parker decision is quite amusing. They heavily quote the government brief in the Miller case not the Parker case. The best quote from the Government's brief from the Miller case is that historically public arms were only allowed to overthrow tyrannical governments. Really? How is the public going to arm themselves to fight the tyrant when the tyrant controls all the arms?

Rudy DiGiacinto | May 17, 2007 9:43 PM | Reply

The rebuttal of the Parker decision is quite amusing. They heavily quote the government brief in the Miller case not the Parker case. The best quote from the Government's brief from the Miller case is that historically public arms were only allowed to overthrow tyrannical governments. Really? How is the public going to arm themselves to fight the tyrant when the tyrant controls all the arms?

Greg Lyons | May 17, 2007 9:45 PM | Reply

Yikes!!! This will certainly be amusing. I can hardly wait for the rest of their "essays" and insightful analysis. They'll be working overtime getting their knickers in a twist. Can an aneurysm be far behind. Of course, the brilliance, justice and wisdom of the SCOTUS really shined in the Dred Scott and Cruikshank decisions, how could anyone question that? I'll give better than even odds that DC caves rather than letting Parker go before the Supremes.

Xrlq | May 18, 2007 7:50 AM | Reply

Here's my favorite part (scroll down to p. 7):

Rather than addressing the Supreme Court's actual holding, and Miller's finding of an inextricable tie between arms possession and participation in a well regulated militia, the Parker court began its discussion of Miller by stating: "On the question of whether the Second Amendment protects an individual or collective right, the Court's opinion in Miller is most notable for what it omits." There is, of course, no principle of interpretation that directs courts to construe what higher courts didn't say, rather than what they did say. This rule of omission is an invention of the Parker majority.

There is, "of course," no more of a factual basis for this goofy observation than there is for just about anything else the Brady Bunch has to say on any other topic. If expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the expression of one is the exclusion of the other) were a brand spankin' new invention of the Parker court rather than a time-honored canon of construction, it probably wouldn't have a Latin name, and I certainly wouldn't have read about it in law school. Nor, for that matter, would any of the framers of the Constitution have had any misgivings on the wisdom of adopting an enumerated (and therefore, inherently finite) Bill of Rights. If a legislative declaration of certain enumerated rights couldn't be construed to implicitly exclude other, unenumerated ones, why was there any controversy over the idea of adopting a Bill of Rights, and what the hell are Amendments 9 and 10 doing in the final product?

Doug in Colorado | May 18, 2007 9:41 AM | Reply

Leave it to the Brady bunch to see strict constructionist interpretation as "judicial activism". If you try to twist the term "The People", as in the right of the people to keep and bear arms, so that it really means the States, then apply that twist to the rest of the bill of rights and you get a State control of free speech, right off the bat...It's a total non-starter.

And don't bother to read any of Jefferson's or Hamilton's other writings about what was intended...pay no attention to those silly Federalist Papers...or their personal letters and notes. America is different from the rest of the world because the founders INTENDED it to be different, and not to repeat the mistakes of the Old World. Vive La Difference!

Nomen Nescio | May 18, 2007 1:59 PM | Reply

in the bradyites defense (i have long experience as legal counsel to the devil, i may note) the words "judicial activism" do not seem to appear anywhere in their press releases on this topic so far.

which is politically smart as well as sensible, since as far as i've ever been able to tell, that term means nothing more than "some judge made a ruling i disagree with". that seems to be how it is consistently used, by everybody who regularly uses it.

nor do they anywhere use the term "strict constructionism", another phrase which doesn't seem to mean very much any longer, if ever it meant anything significant at all.

they may be wrong on all their main points of law and logic, but their rhetoric is not tainted in the manner the previous commenters and our good host have implied. which is to say, their political approach is better than y'all are giving them credit for, folks.

Letalis | May 18, 2007 6:36 PM | Reply

Yes, but they have a nifty articulated cartoon!

Ken | May 18, 2007 7:11 PM | Reply

With so many people promising to kill us and take over our country, why does the Brady Bunch want to take away our means of defending ourselves?

Doug in Colorado | May 21, 2007 11:54 AM | Reply

Hey, nomen...when the cartoon at the top of the article shows a judge with a red pencil crossing out parts of the second amendment, that's by definition judicial activism, whether they use the exact words or not. And what the appellate court has done, I'm defining as what it is in fact...strict constructionism...again, whether the brady bunch uses the words or not.

Leave a comment