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

« Robbery with a gun... a stapler gun | Main | Brady Campaign getting a bit antisemitic? »

Parker/Heller roundup

Posted by David Hardy · 23 November 2007 07:55 PM

I can't recall a case getting this much coverage at the cert. stage. Or at the merits briefing state, either. Usually a Supreme Court case is ignored until the Court rules (and often even after that: in a Term the Court takes about 80 cases, but upwards of 70 are not very sexy). But...

Here's today's Wall St. Journal editorial.

Michigan Atty General Mike Cox weights in with textual argument.

Here's a pretty good general article on the case.

And here's the Brady Campaign press release, calling the Circuit ruling "judicial activism at its worst." Further proof that, in many cases, "judicial activism" amounts to "striking down a law I wanted upheld."

The Harvard Law Bulletin reports that Prof. Mark Tushnet thinks DC may win, while Prof. Larry Tribe thinks the plaintiffs will. It quotes Prof. Tribe, who came over to the individual rights view: “My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, and an unwelcome surprise,” Tribe said in a recent New York Times interview. “I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control.”"

And we shouldn't neglect academia. Here's Nelson Lund's latest, refuting the argument that since the amendment relates to the militia, and handguns are supposedly not militia weapons, they can be banned.

The case not only has its own webpage and blog, it has its own Wikipedia entry, which people are keeping up to date.

· Parker v. DC

3 Comments | Leave a comment

Jeff | November 24, 2007 11:59 AM | Reply

"judicial activism" amounts to "striking down a law I wanted upheld."

Very true. How many liberals today would denouce Brown v. Board of Education as judicial activism? And yet that case was stands as the most striking example of the Court acting on their own despite the will of Congress or the American people.

The media continues to perpetuate revisionist history on the judicial perspective of the Second Amendment. By lying and asserting that the Court has "always" viewed the Second Amendment as a collective right--and that the shift towards an individual right is purely a product of John Ashcroft's assertions--they are able to argue (lie) that they (Brady camp) are promoting the status quo and we (Pro-RKBA) are moving for some radical change.

It always seems to come back to the media.

Jim | November 24, 2007 2:08 PM | Reply

Libs don't mind judicial activism when the plaintiffs are named Griswald or Casey, or are pretending to be named Roe.

Kevin Baker | November 25, 2007 9:11 AM | Reply

Jeff:

I'll disagree with you on Brown. I think the court overreached in its decision, but the finding that "separate but equal" was anything but was Constitutionally correct. The Fourteenth Amendment means something. Just because prior courts "constitutionalized their personal preferences" does not mean that a sitting Court must do the same. "The will of Congress and the American people" is not what the Court is charged to follow. The Constitution of the United States is.

Thus it is with the right to arms. For exactly the same reasons that brought Brown before the court - racism - the right to "keep and carry arms wherever (we) go" (Dred Scott v. Sanford) and "bear arms for a lawful purpose" (U.S. v Cruikshank) was stripped first from blacks, and later from ALL of us.

It's time for the Supreme Court to restore a stolen right.

That's not judicial activism. It's their damned JOB

Leave a comment