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

« Article replying to Judge Wilkinson | Main | serious overreaction »

Lawsuit in PA

Posted by David Hardy · 8 December 2008 09:59 AM

Snowflakes in Hell has the story. It involves the lady who had her concealed carry license revoked -- for open carrying.

8 Comments | Leave a comment

RKV | December 8, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply

Sebastian hasn't read the filing, so it's hard to take him seriously. "I have not seen the case." That said, this should go to the state court, not the federal. The sheriff's conduct is clearly official misconduct (defined under PA statute as "He commits an act relating to his office but constituting an unauthorized exercise of his official functions, knowing that such act is unauthorized"). Prior case law in PA (Commonwealth v. Hawkins) holds that a LEO can't even stop an individual for open carry in the absence of threatening or other illegal behavior. The usual suspects suggest "it's not the right case." At the state level this is pure BS.

Anonymous | December 8, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply

[Q]Sebastian hasn't read the filing, so it's hard to take him seriously. "I have not seen the case." [/Q]

You should have stopped there!

Sebastian | December 8, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply

Actually, you shouldn't take too much seriously until I can track down the actual case. But based on what little information I have, it doesn't seem very advisable at this point.

Carl in Chicago | December 8, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply

Well then, here y'all go. Ignorance is no excuse!

http://furryzone.com/user/insane_kangaroo/files/shefearsnothing/complaint.pdf

Critic | December 8, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply

I hope it's not bad for me to post this off topic, but I thought Obama's comment in his press conference yesterday was kind of interesting. He said:


"lawful gun owners have nothing to fear. I've said that throughout the campaign. I haven't indicated anything different during the transition. And I think that people can take me at my word."[emphasis added]


Is that a little doubt slipping through about whether people can take him at his word? Maybe he thinks he wont be able to get any gun restrictions through Congress, but there's a possibility he might get lucky and then he might decide to break his word.


Of course you obviously can't take him at his word anyway for at least two reasons. He has openly and consistently supported the assault weapon ban. Since the assault weapon ban doesn't actually ban any assault weapons, it's very name is a lie. Also, I'm a law abiding gun owner and I fear I won't be able to buy the kind of semi-auto rifle I'd like to. So much for taking him at his word.


I think we need an alternative name for the assault weapon ban. The best I've come up with is the "gun appearance ban". We need to emphasize to voters that the assault weapon ban is an attempt to fool them.

RKV | December 8, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply

Lawful ammunition purchasers on the other hand, have plenty to fear. Zero parses words like Xlinton.

Tom | December 8, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply

"I think we need an alternative name for the assault weapon ban. The best I've come up with is the "gun appearance ban". We need to emphasize to voters that the assault weapon ban is an attempt to fool them."


Irony...the fact that the first "black" president will ban guns based on nothing more than appearance if given the chance.

As for the case, interesting. If it should have been filed in state courts wouldn't the feds give it the boot and tell them where to go? I think they should have put more emphasis on the state constitution's guarantee on arms. And they should have at LEAST got the pre-existing right guaranteed by the constitution thing right, because it's NOT granted by it.

Anybody know anything about her lawyer?

Andy Freeman | December 9, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply

> "lawful gun owners have nothing to fear. I've said that throughout the campaign. I haven't indicated anything different during the transition. And I think that people can take me at my word."

He's telling the truth. He is planning to significantly reduce the number of lawful gun owners.

Leave a comment