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

« Back up! | Main | 40th high school reunion »

Interesting thought

Posted by David Hardy · 1 October 2009 10:03 PM

SCOTUSBlog has some thoughts on the Chicago gun cases.

To begin with, eight of the nine Justices have never ruled whether a Federal bill of rights liberty is applied to the States by the 14th amendment. The sole exception is Justice Stevens, who was on the Court in 1979 when it last considered a rather small subset of the issue. (back in the 60s the Court had held that the right to a criminal jury trial bound the States. In the 1979 case, it held that allowing conviction on a less than unanimous verdict by a less than 12 member jury would violate this right).

· Chicago gun case

3 Comments | Leave a comment

bud | October 2, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply

"...it held that allowing conviction on a less than unanimous verdict by a less than 12 member jury would violate this right"

Somebody should tell Oregon that. I was outvoted to convict someone on a posession charge that only required 10 votes. That was somewhere in the early 90's. It might have been a misdemeanor charge, if that makes a difference.

This was a case that I'll never forget, because we had one juror, the classic little old lady, who must be a defence attorney's nightmare. She made the statement that "she must have done SOMETHING, or the police wouldn't have arrested her."

Bill | October 4, 2009 10:36 AM | Reply

Watching Alan Gura on Fox News right this minute - with a guy from the Brady Bunch on the other side. They're talking about the McDonald case. Alan is excellent. After seeing him in person about two weeks ago, I am confident that he is the right guy for this job.

W. W Woodward | October 4, 2009 1:26 PM | Reply

The 14th Amendment was ratified by the states (albeit through coercion) after the Barron v. Baltimore decision and is “Constitutional” by definition. Why then wasn’t Barron v. Baltimore considered moot by the court once the 14th Amendment became a part of the Constitution? Has the SCOTUS in its infinite arrogance taken upon itself the power to declare a portion of the Constitution (the 14th Amendment) unconstitutional de-facto by refusing to recognize the inapplicability of Barron v. Baltimore?

Leave a comment