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

« Podcast: Prof. Michael O'Shea on Heller | Main | Gov Kaine (VA) vetoes two pro gun bills »

Larry Tribe on Heller

Posted by David Hardy · 4 March 2008 06:36 PM

Larry Tribe of Harvard Law has an article in the Wall Street Journal. I think his position is somewhere between unclear and inchoherent; seems to agree that there is an individual right but even a complete ban on handguns is an acceptable regulation. The reasoning would be thin for a first year law student, along the lines of "it is wrong to say that a right is absolute; hence any restriction of it is permissible."

Sebastian at Snowflakes in Hell takes him to task. Alan Gura notes that his position last year was quite different.

· Parker v. DC

11 Comments | Leave a comment

30yearprof | March 4, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply

From Alan Gura's web site:
[quote]This is quite a change from Prof. Tribe’s position in May, 2007. At that time, in correspondence with us, Tribe said he would consider playing a “more central role” in our case, with the aim of helping us appeal to justices he perceived to be centrist and left of center. It’s difficult to see how his current position would accomplish that goal.[/quote]

Academia hath no fury like a prima donna spurned.

Jim W | March 4, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply

I'm confused as to why he would about face like this at the last moment. Does he owe someone a favor?

RKV | March 4, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply

This is to be expected folks. We're not on the same team. Larry got the phone call and pulled a last minute 180. Bottom line - this latest stuff is illogical, ahistorical and inconsistent with precedent. Just remember, the Supes just may do a Kelo (redux). At that point, it would be rational to impeach them. That's the sword we hold over their heads - to shame them in the eyes of history. Slick will never get past his impeachment, and neither would Ginzberg or Souter.

Letalis Maximus, Esq. | March 4, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply

Gee, with friends like Larry Tribe....

bill-tb | March 4, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply

So how does this nonsense square with the liberals found right to abortion?

straightarrrow | March 4, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply

Tribe is an ass. NOthing more needs to be said.

cominius | March 4, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply

As noted, Prof. Tribe's opinion piece is dishonest. He characterizes the DC law simply as a ban on concealed handguns, instead of a complete ban on the right to have an operable firearm in one's own home.

As the amici brief of the 31 states attorneys general notes: "An individual right that can be altogether abrogated is
no right at all." Prof. Tribe opines that under any standard of review such an abrogation would be acceptable.

My only question remains whether the Professor is just dishonest to buttress his case for a democratic nomination to the supreme court, or is his dishonesty a congenital disability. If a disability perhaps he can qualify as a supreme under ADA.

Our more detail opinion is at VirginianFederalist.com

Flash Gordon | March 4, 2008 10:23 PM | Reply

This is another example of how ideology makes otherwise smart people stupid.

Mike M. | March 5, 2008 6:40 AM | Reply

After reading that piece, I'm convinced that Harvard Law Schol should have its accreditation withdrawn...and, if possible, prosecuted for fraud.

Because Tribe's reasoning is at a level I would expect from a child.

Robin | March 5, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply

This is the same statist logic as used by the Solicitor General. Basically, it doesn't matter what rights the COTUS guarantees; whatever the government thinks is necessary to govern is OK. After all, it is what a bunch of benevolent smart guys think is for the common good!

happycynic | March 5, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply

My guess is that he finally got a does of ostricization from all of his "intellectual" liberal dinner-party friends.

Leave a comment