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

« Arrest in Chicago | Main | Massacre in Mumbai »

Busy day for the 14th

Posted by David Hardy · 4 December 2008 02:28 PM

In the Chicago case, District Court incorporating the 2nd into the 14th Amendment. Ruling is based on reasoning that he has to obey 7th Circuit precedent, Quilicy v. Morton Grove, until the 7th Circuit changes it. Not unexpected, of course -- this case was going to be settled on appeal.

Can't jump the gun on it, tho. A ruling of this type isn't yet appealable (you have to wait until he dismisses the case).

Hat tips to readers Alice Beard and Gene Hoffman...

· Chicago gun case

2 Comments | Leave a comment

Critic | December 4, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply

It's hard for me to believe that the Nordyke panel will rule any differently. The Supreme Court has explicitly rejected incorporation of the 2nd and even not too many years ago reaffirmed that stuff isn't incorporated until they say it's incorporated. The Nordyke panel has already demonstrated that it will grudgingly obey precedent. I almost wish they'd just reject incorporation without wasting time on oral arguments so we can get it on to the SCOTUS as soon as possible. Unfortunately the SCOTUS might not take this rather complicated case if the 9th circuit doesn't incorporate. They might wait for Chicago or something. Of course if the Nordyke panel can be persuaded to buck precedent, that would be the fastest way to the SCOTUS. Though I kind of don't like going to the SCOTUS in defiance of their precedent, possibly angering them or having them think they need to make an example of lower courts that defy their precedent. It seems unlikely that that would effect their decision significantly, but I'd rather avoid the possibility.

Critic | December 5, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply

Maybe I'm wrong about binding precedent on incorporation. See http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1239422

Leave a comment