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

« Suit to overturn public housing gun bans in San Francisco | Main | Transcript of online chat yesterday »

Heller, women and gays

Posted by David Hardy · 27 June 2008 08:09 PM

Ann Althouse suggests that the Heller women's amicus brief may have been abstracted into Scalia's opinion. "The argument about handguns and upper-body strength is explicitly a women's rights argument in at least one brief..." Given the words employed in both, it's convincing to me.

And Gay Patriot suggests that gays decided will benefit from the decision. He argues "I believe this decision is the best ruling for gays in many years..."

Sounds like everyone wins out, except the editorial board of the New York Times. Like its publish, they may already be packing heat. Much the same in California.

· Parker v. DC

3 Comments | Leave a comment

Letalis Maximus, Esq. | June 28, 2008 7:16 AM | Reply

While we are on the issue of identity politics, I notice that the MSM is heaping scorn upon that nasty old Italian, Scalia. Yet, when the D.C. Circuit's Silberman (a Jew) issued the exact same ruling earlier in the case, the MSM was largely silent.

Elle | June 28, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply

Mr. Hardy,one can not begin to thank you enough for your work and superb documentary "In Search of the Second Amendment".Kudos also to those that collaborated with you in achieving the results you did!

May I ask what Mr. Hellers response is to this outcome,I believe the gentleman's first name is Richard? Has he indicated how the outcome has changed himself or his views?

AMB | June 28, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply

It's more likely that Scalia had closely read Paul Clement's brief. Foot note 9 deals with various strengths of people, and Scalia is familiar enough with firearms that he has more than once heard the basic term "upper body strength." Here's the footnote from Clement's brief:

"The practical adequacy of long guns as a means of self-defense within the home will likely vary from individual to individual. Some disabled
persons, as well as some individuals with less than average physical strength, might have particular difficulty using rifles or shotguns."

It's not only women who can have not much upper body strength, and some women have excellent upper body strength. ... They may not be typical, but they're women too. It's best not to generalize by sex, and Scalia was correct simply to consider PERSONS with not so much upper body strength.

Leave a comment