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

« DC files Parker/Heller brief | Main | "Gun Guys" and Joyce Foundation »

Blogger's take on DC's brief

Posted by David Hardy · 5 January 2008 09:12 AM

Liebowitz's Canticle has a detailed posting on the DC merits brief.

· Parker v. DC

5 Comments | Leave a comment

Rudy DiGiacinto | January 5, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply

The District's Argument that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the District would make it possible for the Government to shut down the Washington Post and the Washington Times. I wonder if the Editors of the Washington Post agree with the Districts Premise?

Brian Badger | January 5, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply

Exactly so. It's very simple:

"1. We welcome the Free Press! In order to operate a newspaper, your newspaper must be registered with the District of Columbia. Thanks for complying!

"2. Newspaper registration is now closed. Thanks for applying!

"See? It's not a ban, it's just a regulation. We still allow the press, so the First Amendment doesn't apply. Er, even if it did apply, it only applies to Congress, not local jurisdictions. Er, what were we talking about again?

"I'm quite sure that the Washington Post agrees with us -- disparaging registration could endanger your registration status! They may be reduced to having only 3/5 of a paper, and only then if they can pass a literacy test."

Fiftycal | January 5, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply

Someone needs to notify the White House. I'd love to see the 101st Airborne (SCREAMING EAGLES) go in and take possession of the Washington Post and "detain" all the employees because they weren't "registered" with the bogus DC government.

Tim | January 6, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply

101st Airborne wouldn't be needed, They could probably take down DC with a SEAL TEAM or 2

straightarrow | January 7, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply

You wouldn't need a SEAL team. Just pay the criminals that already control the streets to detain the criminals that control city hall.

Leave a comment