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

« 5 point checklist for bank robbers | Main | NRA and Brady Center finally have something to agree on »

David Young takes on Chicago's supporting amici

Posted by David Hardy · 18 January 2010 09:05 AM

Here he takes on the historians' amicus, with a promise of more to follow, and here he deals with the amici's treatment of State bills of rights.

· Chicago gun case

2 Comments | Leave a comment

Fed | January 18, 2010 10:39 AM | Reply

I think the second link you provide is his criticism of Chicago's opening brief, not an amici.

Graystar | January 19, 2010 9:04 AM | Reply

"The English provision does not mention any right whatsoever, a difference."

But it was part of the "English Bill of Rights"...doesn't that imply that it's more than just an allowance?

I generally agree with much of what was said...I just think that sometimes even we remove text from its context when it suits our need, when we should be making extra effort not to do so.

Leave a comment