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

« Proposed OAS treaty | Main | City's brief in Chicago challenge »

Wash. Times takes aim at Pelosi

Posted by David Hardy · 17 April 2009 09:01 AM

Editorial here.

Hat tip to reader Scott D. Camassar...

6 Comments | Leave a comment

fwb | April 17, 2009 10:32 AM | Reply

And people still believe the courts when they say that the right to keep and bear Arms is subject to "reasonable" restrictions. Stupid people. Stupid law schools for teaching such garbage.

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is an absolute command and includes ANYTHING and EVERYTHING concerning Arms. It is not a question. The language is not unclear. ANYONE with a elementary grade level grasp of grammar can recognize the declarative stance of the introductory clause. But then that is a problem since 90% of those educated in the public schools have no grammarical skills.

What can be restricted is the improper use, i.e. when someone kills someone, robs someone using an Arm, etc. The simple act of owning, carrying and using an Arm for any legitimate purpose cannot be legistated away. No government has that authority legitimately.

I use the "ALL, SOME, & NONE" logical evaluation to determine what a clause of phrase must mean. So lets look at "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". Take the position that it is a "NONE", meaning SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED halts NONE of the legislation with respect to Arms. This position is untenable because if SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED provide no protection it would not be in the Constitution. So lets say, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED falls under the SOME category. I ask you whose SOME or which SOME of the legislative actions is ok under SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED? Can two persons agree? can 300 million? For law to be law, it must be consistent for everyone. So we are left to say that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED restricts ALL legislation.

Tiochfaidh ar la!

David E. Young | April 17, 2009 11:23 AM | Reply

An historical presenstation on the Bill of Rights related usage of "shall not be infringed" language by the Founders' can be found here.

Don Hamrick | April 17, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply

U.S. Coast Guard Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee (MERPAC) meeting yesterday and today (Thursday/Friday) April 16-17. Voiced my recommendation to arm U.S. merchant vessels and crew against pirates AND to add an endorsement to the new Merchant Marine Credentials (looks like a U.S. Passport but it is red in color. It replaces the old Merchant Marine Document ID Card.

More info at my blog.

Paul H. | April 17, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply

Don no one cares about your butty, unwinnable case. You've trolled many gun fourms and blogs with that stupid case.

Just stop. You're a weak, pathetic troll and I can troll better then you ever can.

Chuck | April 17, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply

Don,

Great post. Short and on topic. Keep up the good work and most of us will not resent your trolling as we have in the past. Go slow, you do have a reputation to overcome. But again, good information, good post.

Druid | April 17, 2009 9:34 PM | Reply

Hawaii has had licensing and registration of guns for about 50 years.


Moved there, lived there for about ten years, moved away, and did not know this.

Good thing I never committed an armed robbery; got busted; and nailed with another charge for an unregistered firearm; because until know I honestly did not know that registration was required.

Leave a comment