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
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 6.3.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Joyce, Obama, and the Heller case | Main | Prof. tries to ban empty holsters »

4th Amendment case

Posted by David Hardy · 23 April 2008 09:23 AM

The Supremes just decided Virginia v. Moore. Defendant was caught driving on a suspended license. State law provided that he be given a summons, rather than arrested, for that. Officers instead arrested him, and a search incident to arrest uncovered drugs.

The Court, per Scalia, holds that a violation of such a statute does not a 4th Amendment violation make. Police had probable cause and the arrest was not "unreasonable." Justice Ginsburg concurs, suggesting it is a little closer historical case than the majority opinion suggests.

· General con law

3 Comments | Leave a comment

gp[martin | April 23, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply

This simply shows that the "left" and the "right" both share an equal fixation on the interest of the "State" over that of the law, individuals or the Bill of Rights.

straightarrrow | April 23, 2008 9:26 PM | Reply

Amen, GP

Anonymous | April 24, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply

"The military round is also handicapped by the US being signatory to the Hague Convention, thereby excluding hollow points for use."

We did not sign the Hague Convention of 1899 that prohibits expanding bullets but we give it lip service anyway. We do, however, violate it's intent by deliberately designing our projectiles to violently fragment.

Leave a comment