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

« PA appeals court strikes down Philadelphia gun ordinance | Main | Lautenburg proposes "terror watch list" to be disqualifier for guns »

US district court splits the constitutional baby

Posted by David Hardy · 19 June 2009 09:48 AM

Discussion here, over at the Volokh Conspiracy.

· prohibitted persons

7 Comments | Leave a comment

Don Hamrick | June 19, 2009 12:36 PM | Reply

Sounds like this case could be the start for felons getting their Second Amendment rights restored. If this defendant wins on his affirmative defense argument we could see a future case of a felon with a gun in his own home shooting and killing another felon in a home invasion case and that afirmative defense where be a felon has a Second Amendment right to armed self-defense in the same manner as a law-abiding citizen.

CDR D | June 19, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply

Here's a 9th Circuit case touching upon this subject:

http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/appgomez.htm

Letalis Maximus, Esq. | June 19, 2009 8:18 PM | Reply

I am waiting for the case where a convicted felon made his own AK receiver out of an old Ford door panel and put it together with a parts kit. The federal felon in possession statute requires that the "firearm" traveled in inter-state commerce and that showing is part of every prosecution under said statute. That "component parts" traveled in inter-state commerce was, at least pre-Raich, not enough.

fwb | June 22, 2009 9:47 AM | Reply

DV is not a feony. Domestic Violence is a misdemeanor. When the first DV laws were passed, some of us spoke out about the fact that this was the first time in the history of tghe US that one could lose fundamental rights for a misdemeanor.

But of course, it's all "reasonable".

May God strike down those who think the word "reasonable" appears in the 2nd. Those who believe government has the authority to restrict Rights with "reasonable" actions DOES NOT UNDERSTAND our form of government. If it is not explicitly granted, the government does not have the legitimate authority to do it. PERIOD!@!

Those who cannot read the delegated powers and recognize the interconnectedness which totally eliminates ANY implicit powers is a fool.

Tiocfaidh ar la!

fwb | June 22, 2009 9:52 AM | Reply

WRT felons: Why should non-violent felons EVER lose their RIGHTS? Violent felons, no problem, cause in a proper system, violent felons are eliminated.

But then because these are INALIENABLE Rights granted by God to man, the Rights cannot be legitimately removed by government nor can these Rights be given up by the person. THAT is what INALIENABLE means.

Tir gan teanga, tir gan anam!

Jeff Showell | June 22, 2009 11:25 AM | Reply

Actually, crimes considered to be felonies seem to have expanded dramatically. It seems almost difficult to conceive of a crime that could not somehow be charged as a felony. And therefore, subject to the loss of gun rights.

Critic | June 22, 2009 6:22 PM | Reply

The right to not be locked in a cage is an inalienable right, but it can be legitimately removed by government if you are fairly convicted of certain crimes. Think of all felony convictions as having a life sentence, often starting with being locked in a cage, and continuing thereafter with a permanent prohibition of gun possession.

Of course there's an "ex post facto" injustice if the felony was committed before the possession ban was enacted, but because the law came into effect about forty years ago, few felons can claim that excuse.

Leave a comment