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

« Online early books on shooting and ballistics | Main | Airline security »

Chicago: alternative outcomes

Posted by David Hardy · 25 December 2009 01:52 PM

Ilya Shapiro lists five different possible outcomes for McDonald v. Chicago. It's a very good analysis.

· Chicago gun case

6 Comments | Leave a comment

bill-tb | December 25, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply

I have a question, wasn't the 14th Amendment designed to protect the newly freed slaves from the Democrat governed southern states who wanted to prevent the freed slaves from being armed? In other words, head off and overturn the Democrat's burgeoning Jim Crow laws in regards to self defense and possession of arms.


And so it follows the 14th Amendment applied to the Second Amendment more than anything else ... but made the BOR universal in State application, as well as prevent state law from disarming citizens.

Letalis Maximus, Esq. | December 25, 2009 4:34 PM | Reply

Bill:

One would think. But basically, in United States v. Cruikshank and Presser v. Illinois, the Supreme Court rejected that argument.

Dan Hamilton | December 25, 2009 10:16 PM | Reply

One would think. But basically, in United States v. Cruikshank and Presser v. Illinois, the Supreme Court rejected that argument.

Can't have those people protecting themselves. That's thegovernments job. If they don't do it those people will just have to wait.

You don't think it's possible they didn't agree with the 14th and decided to gut it? No couldn't be that.

Bert Самара | December 26, 2009 2:36 AM | Reply

Great article . Will definitely apply it to my blog.Thanks.

Jim D. | December 26, 2009 2:20 PM | Reply

Every Supreme Court Justice swears on all that is Holy during their confirmation that they will "respect stare decisis". And here we are where the rubber meets the road.

Cruikshank and Slaughter House were absolutely horrible decisions that have been the law of the land for 150 years. Modern civil rights law has been predicated on these decisions. Our present understanding of individual rights has woven fabric into application using these decisions as both guideposts and obstacles.

I predict the weakest possible punt nine justice's feet can make on the same ball. I guarantee you that Sotomayor will have zero hesitation to revisit every decision intolerable to soc!alism if Privileges and Immunities is restored through anything that amounts to the slightest reversal of Slaughter House.

Libs are bigots. The were pro-slavery from the beginning. They invented the KKK. The created "manifest destiny". Welfare clearly enslaves the poor, and they can't get enough of it. When Slaughter House goes, restraint will follow it out the window.

I'm hopeful for a Due Process decision that applies firearms rights through Interstate commerce. But then, ain't nobody paying me for my opinion....

Critic | December 27, 2009 12:34 AM | Reply

Sotomayor and the three that voted against Heller will likely say that there is no right to arms outside the organized militia, and therefore it makes no sense to hold the Second Amendment against the city's handgun ban. If any one of the Heller five that will be in the majority, objects to PorI, then the precedent will be incorporation by due process.

Leave a comment