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 6.6.2
Site Design by Sekimori

« SCOTUsBlog will be covering Heller tommorrow | Main | Heller argument »

Up and moving

Posted by David Hardy · 18 March 2008 02:48 AM

4:50 AM DC time, 1:50 to my biological clock. Rather astonished that my aged system can manage this sort of thing. Metro system opens at 5. Heading out to the oral argument in the predawn darkness. If I get in, won't be back here until some hours later. ScotusBlog will have the afteraction reports first.

8 Comments | Leave a comment

Alice B. | March 18, 2008 4:31 AM | Reply

Kevin Martin was 7th person in lawyer line; arrived at 4:45 am. I dropped off Bob D. at 5:30 am. Hardy should have arrived about 5:30 am.

The lawyers' line may still get you in. HOWEVER, remember, it's not for all lawyers. The special entrance is only for members of the Supreme Court Bar. So, don't arrive with your D.C. Bar membership card and expect to get in through that door.

Letalis Maximus, Esq. | March 18, 2008 5:34 AM | Reply

I wrote a footnote that made into a Supreme Court brief. Once.

RKV | March 18, 2008 5:44 AM | Reply

I only got into the Supreme Court once. On a tour with my son. Good luck David, and God Bless.

Chris | March 18, 2008 7:10 AM | Reply

History in the making.

It must be exciting to be there, whether you get in or not.

Good luck!

Ray | March 18, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply

I am eager to hear a review of Mr. Gura's performance. While I understand he has a specific case to win, I'm not sure I am comfortable with some of the "bigger picture" positions he is taking in argument.

Chris | March 18, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply

This was rich:

MR. DELLINGER: What is reasonable about a total ban on possession is that it's a ban only an the possession of one kind of weapon, of handguns, that's been considered especially -- especially dangerous. The
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So if you have a law that prohibits the possession of books, it's all right
if you allow the possession of newspapers?

Bill | March 18, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply

I've downloaded but have not yet had time to read the entire transcript - I'll read it tonight. But I skimmed the blogging at SCOTUS Blog. A couple of the comments and questions - primarily those from Breyer - made me want to wrap my head with duct tape to prevent it from exploding. Does anyone doubt Breyer is a far, far left libbie? I'm thinking he's farther left than Ginsburg. Some of the statements I read coming from him seemed snarky and predisposed to being anti-gun rights. Now Scalia, on the other hand - there's a guy who understands the Second Amendment.

Wish I had more spare time to read everything involved in this case...

Doug | March 18, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply

The government is free to ban any arm that is not suitable for civilian use. Nice.

I love these guys and I love this case, but this is not a very defensible stance. How is this any different than saying the "government can ban any type of firearms they want."

Leave a comment