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

« Brady's Richard Aborne loses election in Manhattan | Main | Quite a ship »

An interesting week before us

Posted by David Hardy · 21 September 2009 05:39 PM

Sept. 24: Nordyke v. King is argued en banc before the 9th Circuit.

Sept. 25-27, Second Amendment Foundation and CCRKBA host the Gun Rights Policy Conference in St. Louis.

Sept. 29-30, US Supreme Court votes on, and is likely to announce, whether it takes the Chicago casess.

9 Comments | Leave a comment

Fûz | September 21, 2009 7:28 PM | Reply

. . . as in, "may you live in interesting times"?

Heh.

Chris | September 21, 2009 7:36 PM | Reply

Gotta get incorporation before Obama gets any more picks.

Fûz | September 21, 2009 7:40 PM | Reply

Sorry, gotta slut my link here:

I wonder whether the Supremes will, discreetly, read transcripts of the Nordyke hearing, and would Nordyke, in turn, influence any Justices to hear or not hear the Chicago cases?

Bill | September 22, 2009 9:00 AM | Reply

Today at the Moot Court Room at the University of Richmond Law School in Richmond, VA, at 12:00 noon - Federalist Society is hosting a debate about the meaning of Heller and whether 2A is (or should be) incorporated against the states under the 14th. On the "pro" side is none other than Alan Gura. On the "con" side, I don't know, but I've heard it's someone from the Brady Campaign.

I'll be there.

Bil | September 22, 2009 12:34 PM | Reply

OK, back from the Federalist Society debate.

On the other side against Alan Gura (but actually not totally "against" him) was Michael Herring, Commonwealth's Attorney for the City of Richmond, VA.

The encouraging thing is that both of them stated that it is highly likely - in fact, they seemed to think it was nearly a certainty - that the Court will find that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states via the 14th. What is less clear is how they will go about doing it, but Alan is encouraging them to overrule the Slaughterhouse Cases, as he said the overwhelming consensus among law perfessers, regardless of ideology or political philosophy, is that Slaughterhouse was simply wrong in interpreting what "privileges or immunities" means.

Alan was of the opinion that a due process argument was a "slam dunk," based on precedent, although, as we know, Scalia and Thomas are not fans of "substantive" due process. But they at least likely would concur in the result, based on stare decisis, I suppose, if nothing else.

Alan expressed his opinion that one way or another, 2A will be incorporated, whether there are multiple opinions, some based on due process; some based on the P&I clause; either way, we'll get there. Herring agreed.

What did not get the same level of agreement was the nature of the right protected by the 2A and how that right should properly be understood, and then what effect incorporation would have on states and their ability to regulate firearms. They seemed to generally agree that incorporation will not and should not create a "free-for-all" that means unregulated and unfettered ownership and carrying of guns. The next step after incorporation, of course, is finding out what level of review the right is subject to (Alan of course argued that Heller indicates it should be strict scrutiny or something similar), and what regulations and restrictions may be "reasonable".

One thing that irked me a bit was Herring's somewhat disingenuous complaint about state legislators introducing legislation to "allow people to carry concealed in bars", and how "the last thing I would want to have in my hand if I am carrying a gun is a glass of alcohol." He went on about how people's decision-making is impaired when they're drunk, and how people shouldn't be allowed have guns in bars, etc.

Big problem with that whole line of argument:

1. Virginia doesn't have "bars", per se. We have "establishments" where alcohol is served for on-premises consumption - i.e., restaurants. This includes Red Robin and TGI Friday's. So we're not talking about bikers hanging out at The Dive-in Dugout and getting hammered while strapping. We're talking about me taking my family out for a burger.

2. Last year, our governor signed legislation that allows any Commonwealth's Attorney or Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney (many of whom are fresh-faced, wet-behind-the-ears, straight-from-lawschool-and-the-bar-exam 20-somethings) to carry a concealed handgun "anywhere in the Commonwealth," with no permit, no training, no registration, no requirement to notify anyone, no qualifications, period.

So here we have the CA for Richmond telling us how dangerous it is to have guns in "bars," yet it's perfectly legal for him and his assistants to carry guns in establishments with ABC on-premises licenses - and the law does not forbid them from having a drink while they're packing.

jdberger | September 22, 2009 1:06 PM | Reply

Please note that a bunch of the folks from Calguns are planning on attending the Nordyke Hearing in San Francisco. We did this for the original hearing, too.

We'll follow up with a lunch and a panel discussion of the case. Please join us.

Details can be found here:

http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/events/74-nordykelunch

Jim | September 22, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply

Bil, thanks very much for the the report, very interesting. There seems to be some thinking that Slaughterhouse cases will ro should be overturned. I'm not so sure I agree, although I do think they were wrongly decided.

At this point, I am mostly concerned about the level of scruitny on restrictions. Time will tell.

Paladin | September 23, 2009 8:12 AM | Reply

I'm convinced that whatever the SCOTUS rules will NOT be constitutional. Look at Heller. It's a fundamental individual right but can be infringed on grounds of "reasonable restrictions" such as "sensitive places". It's ALL BS! The courts, the administration, the Congress, The State Governors and right on down the line are ALL CORRUPT and I have absolutely NO CONFIDENCE that the Constitutional protection of the RKBA will be treated as the fundamental "shall not be infringed" right that was intended by the framers.

Nex ut Tyrannus!

CDR D | September 23, 2009 5:20 PM | Reply

CalGuns has the names of the panel:

September 14,2009: The en banc panel has been set: Chief Judge Kozinski, Pregerson, Reinhardt, O'Scannlain, Rymer, Hawkins, Graber, Gould, Tallman, M. Smith, Ikuta.


Kozinski, Gould, and O'Scannlain are likely pro-incorporation. Pregerson and Reinhardt are likely anti.

I don't know a thing about the rest of the herd.

Anyone?

Leave a comment