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

« Cory Maye gets a new trial! | Main | Attempted hijack of Maesrk Alabama »

7th Circuit questions ban on gun ownership by misdemeanor DV defendants

Posted by David Hardy · 18 November 2009 03:12 PM

There's quite a discussion at the Volokh Conspiracy, regarding today's decision that calls into question the Lautenberg Amendment. The court concludes that the law should be given intermediate scrutiny (in part because the firearm was possessed for hunting rather than self-defense), vacates the conviction and sends that case back for more fact-finding. The wording certainly indicates that the court is taking the challenge seriously and wants the parties to do so as well. Opinion here.

Hat tip to readers Todd, and to Alice Beard.

· prohibitted persons

4 Comments | Leave a comment

NM | November 18, 2009 7:57 PM | Reply

Your link is broken.

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=08-3770_002.pdf

fwb | November 19, 2009 10:04 AM | Reply

If it were not FOR the judges and their incorrect decisions, these issues would not arise. It's time for We the People to take our proper place and tell the courts to f--k themselves. Blackstone said it best:

For, whenever a question arises between the society at large and any magistrate vested with powers originally delegated by that society, it must be decided by the voice of the society itself: there is not upon earth any other tribunal to resort to.

Sir William Blackstone, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book I, Chp3, pg.205/6

Unlearn the lies you were taught. The Courts are NOT in charge, they work FOR us. The courts cannot interpret their superior, the Constitution. That is another lie made BY the courts to usurp authority.

Does one have the legitimate authority to define one's superior? I think not.

Tom | November 20, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply

I understand that FWB, BUT we're talking about the same .gov that controls education. Do you REALLY want the products of public education and congressionally controlled mandates to decide what is and isn't constitutional?

When you go down that path you start down the mob rule, tyranny of the majority, areas. I'm not quite sure what the proper actions should be, a simple "not in the constitution so you can't do it" or put it to a vote, but I lean towards the "not in there" given the alternative. We've gotten too far astray of the constitution so I guess that'd be a good place to start looking for answers.

TODD OWENS | November 21, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply

7TH CIRCUIT COURT

Leave a comment