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

« A good day in Virginia | Main | NRA Board elections »

Summary of issues in McDonald v. Chicago

Posted by David Hardy · 17 February 2010 10:10 AM

There's a good summary here, by Cornell U's Legal Information Institute.

· Chicago gun case

1 Comment | Leave a comment

Anonymous | February 17, 2010 4:00 PM | Reply

I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me there's a couple of errors in this discussion:
"Petitioners McDonald, et al., were each in violation of one or another of the gun control laws..."
I don't recall that; as far as I know, none of the petitioners were in any legal trouble. They merely attempted to register legally-owned firearms that were not within Chicago and therefore were not illegally possessed, and were subsequently turned down by the municipality(ies).
I also have trouble accepting their description of Chicago's amicus folks as "Organizations committed to protecting the public’s health, safety, and well-being..."
What, the amici on the petitioners' side are not so committed? What sort of a ridiculous assertion is that?
Hard to get past things like that.

Leave a comment