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 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Brady: A permit holder is just someone who hasn't committed a crime, YET | Main | member of Bloomberg's group under indictment »

Lower court follows pre-Heller law

Posted by David Hardy · 9 July 2008 10:51 AM

Gene Volokh has a post on it. The federal trial court notes that " Ostalaza neglects to substantiate that argument with citations to any authority. Instead, Ostalaza points to District of Columbia v. Heller, a case that was pending before the Supreme Court at the time his motion was filed. " Can't see where that makes a difference.

It then cites to collective-right rulings from its Circuit. As Gene points out, the trial court seems to assume that it is bound by its Circuit rulings even though the Supreme Court has gone to the contrary -- the Circuit is its immediate boss, and until the Circuit changes its mind, the Supreme Court's ruling doesn't matter much.

· Parker v. DC

3 Comments | Leave a comment

wrangler5 | July 9, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply

Didn't the DC Appellate panel follow the Circuit's position on standing WRT Parker and the other plaintiffs besides Heller, even though the Supreme Court has announced a more generous rule?

straightarrow | July 9, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply

time to impeach and convict and disbar. Let them flip burgers, if they are capable of such, which I doubt.

andy | July 10, 2008 7:40 AM | Reply

That's what we need; a bunch of esquires flipping our burgers. Good stuff.

Leave a comment