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

« Officer backshoots defender as defender talks to 911 | Main | Local self defense »

LA Times endorses Chicago gun case

Posted by David Hardy · 6 October 2009 08:48 AM

Will wonders never cease?

Hat tip to reader Alice Beard...

· Chicago gun case

10 Comments | Leave a comment

Jim | October 6, 2009 10:05 AM | Reply

The liberals figure they will argue for rational basis once the right is applied against the states. We really need to cut the 60 vote majority int eh Senate way down in 2010.

Given public opinion on the issue, BHO will have to find a pro-gun, pro-abortion judge to fill the next vacancy.

The Little Coach | October 6, 2009 10:14 AM | Reply

I regard the Times with contempt, generally; but the editors have shown the slightest glimmer of common sense recently on Second Amendment law. Still not enough to get me to renew a subscription, but still . . .

Letalis Maximus, Esq. | October 6, 2009 10:25 AM | Reply

Alan Dershowitz said basically the same thing for years. That Liberals ignored or outright attacked the 2nd Amendment at the peril of the Amendments that they actually cared about.

David McCleary | October 6, 2009 11:17 AM | Reply

Reasonable is not the correct standard of review for a fundamental right. The proper review standard is strict scrutiny, we need to not let the antis push into the minds of people that the wrong review standard applies.

Elgee | October 6, 2009 12:18 PM | Reply

I see a pearl of wisdom that I wish more people would see and understand:

If you support measures to reduce gun violence, as this page does, it's tempting to hope that the court will rule that states aren't bound by the 2nd Amendment. The problem is that allowing states (and cities) to ignore this part of the Bill of Rights could undermine the requirement that they abide by others.

In other words, the LA times tacitly admits that the 2nd amendment protects a personal, individual right to own weapons, and that protecting that right, whether or not they agree with it, is important for the document as a whole.

Chris | October 6, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply

This is what's going on: All these libs are hoping that this case will revive the privileges/immunities clause of the 14th amendment. That would then open the floodgates for future judges to find new, unenumerated "rights" in the constitution.

CDR D | October 6, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply

>>>Alan Dershowitz said basically the same thing for years. That Liberals ignored or outright attacked the 2nd Amendment at the peril of the Amendments that they actually cared about.

Yes, and I love the quote attributed to Dershowitz:

"Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a safety hazard don't see the danger of the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."

Tom | October 6, 2009 5:59 PM | Reply

"That would then open the floodgates for future judges to find new, unenumerated "rights" in the constitution."


Like the 9th amendment does? Like my right to protect my hearing by using appropriate technology (over 100yrs old) on a firearm, or my right to keep my property instead of giving it to the .gov to hand out to other people.

RKV | October 6, 2009 7:09 PM | Reply

Article 1 Section 8 defines the missions of the militia (aka the citizens [not the government's employees]). Weapons which the government's employees would use to perform the three missions enumerated therein are protected for the citizens.

Claudius Gluteus Maximus | October 18, 2009 9:38 AM | Reply

Give the LA Times credit. They at least understand trashing the Bill of Rights, even if they disagree on the 2nd amendment. This stance does not get them to heaven, but it just may keep them out of the alternative.

Leave a comment