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

« Situation in France | Main | Robert VerBruggen takes on Harvard Crimson »

NY Times on Parker/Heller

Posted by David Hardy · 3 December 2007 07:48 AM

Story here. And for the NYT, strangely unbiased.

· Parker v. DC

6 Comments | Leave a comment

Lewellyn | December 3, 2007 1:06 PM | Reply

That was an unusually unbiased piece from the Times.Perhaps the Times are beginning to realize that if the Second Amendment is restricted and infringed,it will only be a matter of time before the First Amendment-the auspices under which they currently operate-will also come under similar infringements and restrictions due to the usual suspects of complacency and attitude.One must either be for ALL rights,or one is for no rights-there is no picking and choosing some over others.

Blessings

Lewellyn

Chris | December 3, 2007 4:07 PM | Reply

They see the writing on the wall.

Just like with their recent article that said the surge may actually be working.

They may be treasonous, but they don't want to appear totally stupid.

Jim | December 3, 2007 6:49 PM | Reply

Perhaps the turnaround is motovated by the price of their stock? Nah...

rich | December 4, 2007 7:52 AM | Reply

The Times has wanted to be on the winning side for some time now, before they wanted to be right (yes it was a long time ago)

I think they do see the writing on the wall and so are trying to look reasonable so they can then push for "reasonable" limitations.

Dante | December 4, 2007 9:30 AM | Reply

Has the New York Times ever referred to John Edwards as a "rich lawyer?"

Tarn Helm | December 5, 2007 12:30 AM | Reply

rich posted at December 4, 2007 07:52 AM:

I think they do see the writing on the wall and so are trying to look reasonable so they can then push for "reasonable" limitations.


I tend to agree, Rich.

I'll go further than that.

The shot-callers at NY Times are slime.

Leave a comment