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

« AP on Parker -- gets almost everything wrong | Main | Government files amicus -- on DC's side! »

Amici for DC online

Posted by David Hardy · 11 January 2008 08:16 PM

Right here.

· Parker v. DC

2 Comments | Leave a comment

Rudy DiGiacinto | January 11, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply

This can't be Kosher.

"The States continued to regulate after the Second
Amendment’s adoption. In the early 1800s, Kentucky
and Louisiana banned the carrying of concealed weapons.

Everybody who knows the history of concealed weapons laws knows the Kentucky court found those laws unconstitutional. A significant fact left out in the statement and premise. I thought Rabbi's and Pastor's and Priests weren't supposed to lie? It's amazing who is willing to sell their souls these days

dwlawson | January 11, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply

aMERICANS WERE HARDLY SHY ABOUT IDENTIFYING AND DISCUSSING SUCH FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AS REPRESENTATION, TRIAL BY JURY, OR FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE, OR THE NATURAL RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY. tHE FACT THAT REFERENCES TO THE KEEPING OF FIREARMS ARE SO FEW AND TERSE, OR THAT THE MODERN ACADEMIC CONTROVERSY OVER THE sECOND aMENDMENT HAS BEEN FORCED TO SQUEEZE SO MUCH MODERN INTERPRETIVE BLOOD FROM SO FEW EVIDENTIARY TURNIPS, IS ITSELF AN INDICATOR OF HOW MINOR A QUESTION THIS WAS AT THE TIME.

Perhaps the simpler and more accurate conclusion would be that gun ownership wasn't debated because it fit under property ownership and it wasn't conceived to be something the govt could take away.

Leave a comment