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

« Lost our public defender | Main | Pizza Hut, again »

Heller: other side manning lifeboats

Posted by David Hardy · 2 April 2008 09:39 AM

Here's an article by a former staff attorney to the Brady Campaign.

It doesn't talk a lot about the core issue, but winds up agreeing that "the justices’ statements at the oral argument, as well as their previous comments and general ideological leanings, strongly suggest that at least five of them will endorse the view that the Second Amendment extends broadly to reach more than just military activities"

It ends with hopes the Court will focus on standard of review, maybe uphold part of the DC law and strike other parts.

· Parker v. DC

15 Comments | Leave a comment

Turk Turon | April 2, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply

Dare I hope?
Dare I dream?

Chris | April 2, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply

At this time, a collective rights opinion is simply unthinkable. An individual right interpretation is assumed to be in the bag among gun owners. Anything else will cause states to secede.

The only question is what other tidbits the opinion might hold, such as level of scrutiny.

Rich | April 2, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply

Chris: we lost the right to secede in the Civil War. Since then the Fed has taken more and more rights away because who do they answer to? Think about taking personal property (land/home)and giving it to companies because the companies will increase ratables.

There was nosecession then and the legal response to that was tepid at best.

Dan Hamilton | April 2, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply

You are correct there is no right to secede.

But then there is always the Declaration. That covers what might MIGHT! need to be done.

After all that is what the 2ed is for and the reason it was put as part of the Bill of Rights.

Pray for the Best. Prepare for the worst.

)(#@^^%()#, the price of ammo is high!

Alcibiades McZombie | April 2, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply

There was never any right to secede. And the South's act of secession is what helped create a larger Federal government in response to their craziness.

Carl in Chicago | April 2, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply

My comment was a little more edgy, and less professional, that Mr. Hardy's:

Dear Allen:

Isn't this nice, finding middle ground. And, so timely, too.

I don't wish to detract from your optimism, which is an attitude that I support. But you must fully realize that lawful gun owners have had quite enough of "Brady Campaign-style" middle ground and compromise. It's really quite nice, and convenient, that you're calling for that now, when the Brady status-quo all along has been to incessantly call for one restrictive measure after another, all in the name of compromise and "common sense." Given the trajectory of the Brady's strategy, there would, or could, have been no other possible ending-point than the complete criminalization of firearm ownership in the United States.

And those of us who know the issue fully realize that. Now, at long last, it's time for some common sense constitution-style.

You are certainly stretching for clues that the Supremes might support the Brady's position - which in truth would have rendered the entire amendment into utter meaninglessness. Yes, Roberts hinted that he might ponder trigger locks...just before he joked that during an emergency, one would have to turn on their light and put on their reading glasses before fumbling with a trigger lock in the middle of the night, while facing the uncertainty and stress associated with a burglar in the sanctity of one's home. For you to say he'll support the trigger lock position is a bit of a stretch. But hey...you should go with what you've got.

Finally, you state that the meaining of the amendment is in the eye of the beholder...that it's a "toss-up." How nice - it appears that seveal of DCs amici took that befuddled approach, including that group of cunning linguists.

But just remember this - one doesn't have to be a law professor or a PhD to understand that the militia clause re-affirmed the importance and necessity of a citizen's militia, while the guarantee clause stated in no uncertain terms that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Thanks for your article, I had fun with it.

Chris | April 2, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply

I'm no lawyer, but Montana's Secty of State says they *will* secede if Heller comes down as a collective right.

Link

"...A collective rights decision by the court would violate the contract by which Montana entered into statehood, called the Compact With the United States and archived at Article I of the Montana Constitution. When Montana and the United States entered into this bilateral contract in 1889, the U.S. approved the right to bear arms in the Montana Constitution, guaranteeing the right of “any person” to bear arms, clearly an individual right

There was no assertion in 1889 that the Second Amendment was susceptible to a collective rights interpretation, and the parties to the contract understood the Second Amendment to be consistent with the declared Montana constitutional right of “any person” to bear arms

As a bedrock principle of law, a contract must be honored so as to give effect to the intent of the contracting parties. A collective rights decision by the court in Heller would invoke an era of unilaterally revisable contracts by violating the statehood contract between the United States and Montana, and many other states..."

Kukulkan | April 2, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply

My comment posted at the article reposted below:

"If the Court wisely heads for the sensible middle ground, everybody will win."

The biggest problem with this statement is that Mr. Rostron's idea of the middle ground is not sensible. Mr. Rostron believes that an individual right subject to the lowest level of judicial scrutiny is the middle ground. Under this level of review, D.C. could pass virtually any law so long as it could articulate a rational basis for the law. (e.g., the legislature has found that shotguns are more effective for home defense; laws outlawing possession of handguns would have a rational basis) Accordingly, an opinion from the Court that found an individual right not tied to the militia, but subject to rational basis scrutiny, would be a pyrrhic victory for people who support the right to keep and bear arms.

There is a fundamental disconnect between what Mr. Rostron believes are reasonable regulations and what supporters of the right to keep and bear arms view as reasonable regulations. Moreover, Mr. Rostron believes that the middle ground should be measured from where we are today. This position ignores the fact that gun laws have been accumulating for the past 225 years. From the perspective of supporters of the right to keep and bear arms, Mr. Rostron's mythical middle ground was reached decades ago. Now it's time for the pendulum to swing back towards the middle ground and away from the unreasonable restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms that have been enacted due to the advocacy of Mr. Rostron and his former employer.

The Mechanic | April 2, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply

Secession is the ultimate opt out. The ability to opt out from government 'services' and the taxes that pay for them defines sovereign freedom. For example my budget doesn't have room for illegal aliens, and all their asociated upkeep. I for one wouldn't miss them if they were gone completely. The income tax was never properly ratified so technically it has no power in law. Whats the difference between revenue and plunder?

W. W Woodward | April 2, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply

State secession was never and is not now an illegal act. If it were at least some of the leaders of the Confederacy would have been tried for treason. That did not happen because the attorneys for the federal government knew they couldn't win the case. They sure as heck didn't refrain from pressing treason charges against General Lee and President Davis out of the goodness of their hearts. Secession is now rarely ever considered because people know that the federal government will kill you if you try.

Turk Turon | April 3, 2008 4:53 AM | Reply

Con-con!
Constitutional Convention, that is. I can think of a dozen states right off the bat that would immediately begin delegate selection, and I can think of two or three that might call their legislatures into Special Sessions to do it (AZ, NH, WY, MT, ID, VA, etc).
Faced with the prospect of having the entire Constitution up for grabs, Congress would probably pass an amendment to make the 2A explicitly and unambiguously an individual right, and rush it to the state legislatures for ratification.

Eric | April 3, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply

"reasonable restrictions"? sounds like an Oxy moron ....... how can one be the other ?

The bill of rights exlains that the rights are for the people ...individuals ( not collective)

What is "resonalbe" about restrictions ?? who has the authority to created such "restrictions"?

yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is the argument for the 1st amendment...

then the only equiv.. on the 2nd amendment would be not restricting types of arms or ammunition but rather one can not go and randomy shoot at people for no reason at all.

but NOT the banning of guns or poseesion of.

Letalis Maximus, Esq. | April 3, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply

Ammo prices?

Yeah, 7.62 NATO 200 battle packs priced at $120 - $150, depending upon maker.

Remember when they were 3 for $35 each?

Gregg | April 3, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply

letalis,
Yeah but that was the good german stuff.

straightarrrow | April 4, 2008 12:25 AM | Reply

u guys r breaking my heart with those ammo prices.

Leave a comment