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

« Medical update | Main | Bill Whittle on the right to arms »

DC court equivocates on right to arms and ammunition

Posted by David Hardy · 4 November 2010 07:17 PM

Discussion over at The Volokh Conspiracy. It's Herrington v. United States, a conviction under the DC Code section that outlaws possession of ammunition unless the possessor has a registered arm in the same "gauge or caliber" (so might a person with a .25 auto own .25-06 and .257 Roberts ammo?)

The court holds that the 2nd Amendment would allow a ban on ammo not suited for a registered gun (assuming, it notes, that the registration requirement were lawfully designed) but that a government cannot put the burden of proving registration of a gun on the defendant ... it can't be illegal to possess unless defendant shows he has a registered firearm in that bore, it must be illegal to possess if the government proves possession and lack of registration beyond a reasonable doubt.

A minor advance (unless you happen to be the defendant here), but every journal proceeds one step at a time. A few years ago a hope that a D.C. court might even suggest that registration might be have constitutional problems would have been unthinkable.

· Chicago aftermath

2 Comments | Leave a comment

Sevesteen | November 5, 2010 7:57 AM | Reply

placeholder comment

fwb | November 5, 2010 10:41 AM | Reply

Question 1: Which legislative body passed the statute, Congress or the DC Council?

If it was the DC council, the law is patently unconstitutional. ONLY Congress may legislate in DC. They have no authority to delegate the power. The Constitution is explicit in stating that Congress has EXCLUSIVE, though not absolute, authority to legislate in the district, etc.

Delegata potestas non potest delegari - "A delegated power cannot itself be delegated."

Again, as I have stated over and over, one man's reasonable is another's unreasonable and the word "reasonable" does not appear in the 2nd Amendment. Bogus claims by those in power continually "infringe" on the People's authority.

Leave a comment