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

« Chicago-- WE WIN | Main | Comments »

Chicago

Posted by David Hardy · 28 June 2010 09:53 AM

Opinion here. 240 pages if you count the concurrences and the dissents. A wonderful day! Everyone gets something. Alan Gura gets Thomas' concurrence, and the fifth vote. Steve Halbrook gets cited a zillion times (as I've said before, if you could copyright an argument, the Supreme Court would have had to negotiate royalties with him). I get cited by majority and the concurrence. Professors Wyldenthal, Curtis and Aynes get cited. The Women State Legislors' brief, by Sarah Gervase, Carol Bambery and Linsday Charles, gets cited, too. UPDATE: not to mention Bob Cottrol, Ray Diamond, and Clayton Cramer, who get cited by the majority, the Thomas concurrence, or both.

The majority decisively rejects Stevens' argument for "incorporation, but a weaker version applies to the States." Scalia's concurrence stomps all over Stevens' dissent. And, while not addressing standard of review, the Court repeatedly describes the right to bear arms as fundamental.

· Chicago gun case

14 Comments | Leave a comment

rspock | June 28, 2010 11:17 AM | Reply

As I posted before, the Brady Campaign is spinning like a top:
"...“We are pleased that the Court reaffirmed its language in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment individual right to possess guns in the home for self-defense does not prevent our elected representatives from enacting common-sense gun laws to protect our communities from gun violence. We are reassured that the Court has rejected, once again, the gun lobby argument that its ‘any gun, for anybody, anywhere’ agenda is protected by the Constitution. The Court again recognized that the Second Amendment allows for reasonable restrictions on firearms, including who can have them and under what conditions, where they can be taken, and what types of firearms are available. ..."

Anonymous | June 28, 2010 1:29 PM | Reply

uh, Scalia took Stevens to the woodshed and spanked his bare ass. GOOD!

one problem is that the purpose of the Second Amendment has been erroneously redefined.

Self-defense is not the "central component".

Letalis Maximus, Esq. | June 28, 2010 3:07 PM | Reply

Stevens has become an embarrassment. Although I sometimes wish he would hang on until Obama is gone, it is past time for him to go.

Carl from Chicago | June 28, 2010 3:34 PM | Reply

Posted by: Anonymous at June 28, 2010 01:29 PM:
"...one problem is that the purpose of the Second Amendment has been erroneously redefined. Self-defense is not the "central component"."

I've thought about this for quite some time.

I think what you are getting at amounts to needless splitting of hairs. Whether individual self defense is the "core component", or whether collective defense (security of a free state) is the core component ...

How might you define/compare/contrast individual self defense with defense of family and home with defense of the neighborhood with defense of the state with defense of the nation? I would suggest to you that at some level, and a rather fundamental level at that, all those above are one in the same.

Common criminals may pose a threat to one's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, as do other enemies, both domestic and foreign. I see individual self defense and collective community/state/national defense as incapable of being uncoupled. And that, I suspect, is why the right to arms is considered a general right, a basic right, a fundamental one.

Jim D. | June 28, 2010 4:02 PM | Reply

Carl,

Clearly the People need the permission of the government to defend the nation, otherwise, acting as the Militia, they could act unilaterally to repel border incursions.

This simply is not being allowed to happen in Arizona.

Dave D. | June 28, 2010 5:36 PM | Reply

...Dave Hardy, you've labored in the trenches, through the valley of gun control, and have now seen the sunlit uplands of the Right to keep and bear arms. I thank you personally for your unstinting effort. You and millions of others stood up when standing up was crucial. We are here today, at this decision, because YOU WERE THERE through those dark times and never gave up.

David Mccleary | June 28, 2010 5:46 PM | Reply

I agree with Dave D

Thanks Dave

Stephen | June 28, 2010 6:31 PM | Reply

Another agreement with James D. Thanks Mr. Hardy!!!

dusty | June 28, 2010 6:59 PM | Reply

Congratulations on the citation!
And thanks, by the way.

RKV | June 28, 2010 7:56 PM | Reply

Congrats! Now let's finish the job.

Phil | June 28, 2010 8:06 PM | Reply

I would like to echo the "thank-you's" to David Hardy. What a great day. I have two wonderful, happy, baseball-loving sons, age 10 and 11, who already know who Hardy, Gura, Halbrook and Cramer are from dinner-table discussions ... too bad there aren't collectible sports cards for you guys...

Masha | June 28, 2010 9:28 PM | Reply

I would SO buy those sports cards.

James | June 28, 2010 9:58 PM | Reply

David - we've come a long way since the discussions on how to get the Supreme Court to take a Second Amendment case and how to get it incorporated we had on talk.politics.guns in the early '90's :-) Glad to see you getting some recognition from the Court :-)

Brad | June 29, 2010 9:44 PM | Reply

RKBA is fundamental!

Oh, yeah!

Leave a comment