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 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Bellesiles writes again ... and gets pounded again | Main | Federal judge rips sheriff over permit denial »

Thought for the day

Posted by David Hardy · 8 July 2010 10:30 AM

In Heller, the dissent took the view that the Second Amendment was adopted in order to ensure that Americans could participate in State-mustered forces that could resist the Federal government with armed force.

Combined with McDonald.... the "liberal" wing embraces Jefferson Davis, the "conservative" wing embraces John Bingham.

Perhaps we could suggest that in the future, the dissenters refer to 1861-65 as The War of Northern Aggression and the majority refer to it as The War of the Rebellion.

7 Comments | Leave a comment

Letalis Maximus, Esq. | July 8, 2010 10:55 AM | Reply

Except, of course, every time a State has raised that EXACT argument in a federal court case, it has lost.

We call that: "Heads the Federal Government wins, Tails the States lose."

kalashnikat | July 9, 2010 4:29 PM | Reply

Wouldn't it be interesting if Texas or Arizona raised it's militia to resist the Federal Government...and to protect it's borders against illegal entry?

RKV | July 9, 2010 6:49 PM | Reply

I wonder if Arizona could require the members of its militia to carry a militia photo id. Article 16 Section 1 of the state constitution provides in relevant part - "The militia of the state of Arizona shall consist of all capable citizens of the state between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years." AZ could require that you bring a birth certificate to register, too. Any time an AZ sheriff or other LEO stopped a young male you'd be required to produce your militia id. Just thinking. Young men are still required to register for the federal selective service btw.

RKV | July 9, 2010 6:51 PM | Reply

Sorry, forgot to finish the thought - young men failing to carry militia id would be arrested if the officer could not cross check a photo database via a cell phone.

Ach | July 11, 2010 8:43 AM | Reply

Minor detail: "Where is your Arizona issue militia photo id?"
"But, sir! I'm just visiting from Maryland! I don't have such an id!"
"Then let me see your passport or vista. You have legal documentation to enter the United State."

Note: I've lived in Maryland most of my life - and I like to joke that "One day, I'm going to leave the Peoples Republic of Maryland and emigrate to the United States." I'm ragging on Maryland, not Arizona.

SDN | July 12, 2010 4:26 AM | Reply

Mr. Hardy, you've pointed out one of many reasons why the current incarnation of the Democrat party should be referred to as Copperheads.

dusty | July 12, 2010 8:52 AM | Reply

The irony of Heller is that the dissenters said the 2nd amendment protected the rights of DC citizens to join ... what, a federal enclave's militia?

That's like giving the soldiers at Fort Hood the right to join an on-base militia run by the Army.

Leave a comment