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

« Interesting note on abuse of law | Main | Some changes in Canada »

SCOTUSBlog on Parker v. DC stay of mandate

Posted by David Hardy · 27 May 2007 06:03 PM

It's here. And here's a .pdf of the stay motion, which doesn't say much that isn't obvious.

· Parker v. DC

3 Comments | Leave a comment

dwlawson | May 27, 2007 8:48 PM | Reply

Granted I'm just a lowly layman, but I don't understand the logic of Jacob Berlov's comment about this being a lose-lose situation.

We don't live in an aggragate of State and local laws...I, for one, live in Chicago and can only see a positive from a leveling of gun control laws.

The localities with more liberal guns laws could just as easily have the same strict gun laws as D.C. or Chicago if they chose now. Just because SCOTUS permits a certain level of gun control across the board doesn't require them to enact such laws.

Maybe I'm just ignorant, but nothing SCOTUS decides will force any new gun control laws to be enacted, but merely say they could be.

Since there isn't a decision currently saying they can't enact those laws now, why would they want to do so with a clearer statement from SCOTUS?

Chris | May 28, 2007 4:41 PM | Reply

DWLAWSON,

I agree with your comment. Sure, even if the SCOTUS upheld Parker, it wouldn't be a total panacea for gun owners, but it would immediately improve the situation for people like you in places like Chicago or DC.

Plus, it would provide a wonderful precedent to challenge further restrictive laws throughout the country. There are risks in going to SCOTUS, but a win would be monumental.

dwlawson | May 29, 2007 6:57 PM | Reply

Interestingly the people at SCOTUSBlog disagreed and decided not to allow my comment on their blog.

Leave a comment