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

« Report from Fort Hood | Main | NY case on destruction of guns »

DC Ct of Apps holds Heller is retroactive

Posted by David Hardy · 12 November 2009 01:26 PM

Pdf ruling here. Skim ahead to p. 21, or p. 29 if you have a low threshold of boredom.

· Parker v. DC

5 Comments | Leave a comment

Rich | November 13, 2009 8:32 AM | Reply

if you read that whole thing and stayed awake you have my admiration

Jim | November 13, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply

I read it and stayed awake, although not without some cursing. I thinkt he end result is hilarious! To win, DC has to offer evidence that they would have given the guy a permit! HAHAHAHA!

Ken | November 14, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply

My read was that they would have to show that, had they allowed individuals to register firearms, the appellant would have been denied registration on constitutionally valid grounds (e.g., disqualified person under 18USC922(g)).

RAH | November 15, 2009 10:06 AM | Reply

I skimmed it and it appeared to be remanded back to trial court to decide if the man could have qualified. Under which set of regulations? DC has changed them at least 3 times.

But that since the ban violated the consititution, they have to get rid of unregistered gun charge.

However the defendent claimed he found the gun, so how does that square with him to a law abiding gun owner.

Andy Freeman | November 17, 2009 8:45 AM | Reply

> However the defendent claimed he found the gun, so how does that square with him to a law abiding gun owner.

How does that claim imply that he broke any law?

What law do you think that I broke when I found a newspaper on the street yesterday?

Leave a comment