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

« Campus carry bill moving ahead in OK | Main | McCain's constitutional qualifications »

Another take on USA Today re: Heller

Posted by David Hardy · 28 February 2008 02:52 PM

Shining City on a Hill has this take on Heller, and on this USA Today article.

The USA Today piece points out an interesting cultural rift: 73% of the American public believes it has an individual right to arms, but the enormous majority of lower federal court judges believe they do not. I'm hard put to come up with another situation where this is true.

· Parker v. DC

6 Comments | Leave a comment

Jim D. | February 28, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply

David said:
the enormous majority of lower federal court judges believe they do not (have an individual right). I'm hard put to come up with another situation where this is true.

Let's just say it: Not since slavery was abolished have the courts ruled so often against civil rights.

There is clearly a worldwide focus to erode individual rights in favor of the State. The United States and the BOR is the last major obstacle.

straightarrrow | February 28, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply

JIm D. is correct in his assessment. If we can be eliminated as an example of a free people capable of self defense against ordinary criminals or criminal government in the minds of the rest of the world, the one world order will be easier to achieve.

Das Reich by any other name is still obscenity, but first our shining example must be either tarnished or extinguished.

Many of the people in power, i.e. lower federal court judges e.g., are too dim to realize that they will not be valued members of the new order simply because their betrayal of us will not be forgotten by those they try to enable in our destruction. Thus be it always so that traitors are abhorred by all.

nash | February 28, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply

"I'm hard put to come up with another situation where this is true."

How about the capital punishment?

RKV | February 29, 2008 7:21 AM | Reply

75% of Americans can read and comprehend simple declarative English prose. Apparently our schools aren't doing so badly after all. Maybe not the law schools, but most of the other ones appear to be doing their job.

straightarrrow | February 29, 2008 7:59 AM | Reply

"I'm hard put to come up with another situation where this is true."

How about the taking of private property to give to other private entities? Ex; Kelo?

Brad | March 4, 2008 1:16 AM | Reply

The USA Today story wasn't too bad by the usual flaming anti-gun standards of the establisment Press. But it did contain a blatant falsehood stating that machineguns were banned under federal law. And no, it was not a specific reference to FOPA 1986.

I wonder how many people besides myself called the USA Today corrections editor to complain? The comments section of the online story is riddled with people observing the same error.

As of Monday the 3rd, no correction printed yet from USA Today.

Leave a comment