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

« Eugene Volokh on the increase in gun sales | Main | Charges against X-Caliber Guns dismissed »

Comment on 14th Amendment cases

Posted by David Hardy · 18 March 2009 08:00 PM

Here, in the Wall Street Journal Online. It would be better if the writer didn't think of the right to arms in liberal vs. conservative lights.

· 14th Amendment

2 Comments | Leave a comment

Melancton Smith | March 19, 2009 11:17 AM | Reply

I'm not sure why the author thinks that an originalist like Scalia would insist on reading a 19th Century amendment with an 18th Century voice? Surely Scalia would interpret the 14th Amendment with the original understanding of post-reconstruction era just as he interprets the Bill Of Rights with the original understanding of ratification era.

CDR D | March 19, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply

In his 1997 book, "A Matter of Interpretation", Scalia had this to say WRT to the 14A equal protection:

"I certainly do not assert that it permits discrimination on the basis of age, sex, 'sexual orientation', or for that matter even blue eyes and nose rings. Denial of equal protection on all those grounds is prohibited - but that still leaves open the question of what *constitutes* a denial of equal protection. Is it a denial of equal protection on the basis of sex to have segregated toilets in public buildings, or to exclude women from combat? I have no idea how Professor Dworkin goes about answering such a question. I answer it on the basis of the 'time-dated' meaning of equal protection in 1868. Unisex toilets and women assault troops may be ideas whose time has come, and the people are certainly free to require them by legislation; but refusing to do so does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, because that is not what 'equal protection of the laws' ever meant."

Leave a comment