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

« CNN transcript somewhat altered? | Main | Richardson flip-flop on gun shows? »

Law.com on Parker

Posted by David Hardy · 29 July 2007 12:52 PM

Strangely, it captions it as Heller v. DC. Hat tip to David Codrea, who also noted the strange titling of the case.

[Blogging has been light since I'm out of town, to take a deposition, participate in some meetings, and do some technical research].

· Parker v. DC

7 Comments | Leave a comment

JohnS | July 29, 2007 2:02 PM | Reply

Yes, it's odd, but the March 9 court doc says "The noteworthy distinction in this case—a distinction
mentioned in appellants’ complaint and pressed by them on appeal—is that appellant Heller has applied for and been denied a registration certificate to own a handgun, a fact not present in Seegars."

Perhaps Law.com is indulging in a prioritization of some kind.

Sertorius | July 29, 2007 4:50 PM | Reply

That article quotes Bogus as claiming Robert Bork supports the collectivist view. Anyone have a cite from Bork's writings to confirm or deny this?

Magus | July 29, 2007 5:00 PM | Reply

As I said on David's site, I'm not a lawyer but my understanding of USSC naming rules are:

Heller was the one who had standing in Parker V. DC.

The appellate is named first in USSC cases. [I believe the appellate is named first in nearly all court cases--not sure on that--but I know that's the way it is for USSC cases.]

DC is appealing, Heller was the only one with standing, ergo, the District of Columbia v. Heller case name.

Letalis | July 29, 2007 5:15 PM | Reply

Regarding Bork:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork

He is no friend of the Second Amendment, or frankly, most of the other parts of the Bill of Rights.

dwlawson | July 29, 2007 8:42 PM | Reply

According to the pleadings posted on Mr. Gura's website, it is known as:
"District of Columbia and Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, Petitioners, v. Dick Anthony Heller, et. al., Respondents"

Unable to post a link for some reason.

RKV | July 29, 2007 9:11 PM | Reply

We dodged a bullet when Bork got "Borked." He's the kind of (so-called) conservative who never met an unenumerated right retained by the people, nor found a power not delegated to the FedGov reserved to the states or the people.

straightarrow | July 31, 2007 1:54 AM | Reply

RKV, you are absolutely correct. Any man considered for a seat on the highest court in the land who does not understand that the fourth amendment in its description of the rights guaranteed non-interference is the very definition of privacy just plain isn't smart enough to sit on any bench.

I am giving him a break on the "isn't smart enough...", otherwise I would have to call him evil.

Here is the text of the fourth amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

What better definition of privacy from state inspection could there be? Yet, Bork, who seemed to disaprove of Roe v. Wade, decided on an "emanation of a penumbra" of privacy thought that stripping the fourth amendment from effective participation in the rights of all citizens was the course to take to achieve his societal views. That is despotism. It does not belong on the USSC. We have had it, but at least one despot didn't make it. Bork.

I prefer to think he is not bright. I know why I oppose abortion and it has nothing to do with needing to justify my opinion by denying every other American their "right to privacy". Bork was a jackass.

Leave a comment