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 6.6.2
Site Design by Sekimori

« Thought for the day | Main | Non-firearm assault in Australia »

Debate at the Brookings Institution

Posted by David Hardy · 12 June 2007 01:38 PM

Story here.

Benjamin Wittes, a guest scholar at the center-left Brookings Institution, agreed that the Second Amendment "is one of the clearest statements of right in the Constitution," and suggested that those who dislike that ought to try to amend it.

And Prof. Randy Barnett answered that that might encourage people who question the other provisions in the Bill of Rights to take the same approach to Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search, and that they could as easily argue "Sure it was fine that persons should be secure in their papers and effects back in the old days when there wasn't a danger of terrorism and mass murder." That ties in with what he said in my documentary: those who disparage the Second Amendment should remember that the same methodology can be used to disparage the rest of the Bill of Rights: by agreeing to protect the Second, even if you don't like it, you increase the chances the parts of the Bill of Rights you do like will also be secured.

Leave a comment