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

« Oklahoma expands self-defense | Main | NRA Annual Meeting »

Law review article by Clark Neily

Posted by David Hardy · 26 April 2011 11:47 AM

"THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IN THE STATES: AMBIGUITY, FALSE MODESTY, AND (MAYBE) ANOTHER WIN FOR ORIGINALISM" in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. It is so refreshing to read an article which begins with: "District of Columbia v. Heller1 was an easy case to get right."

2 Comments | Leave a comment

Gregg | April 26, 2011 5:19 PM | Reply

I find the argument that the 2nd Amendment is only applicable to States due to the14th to be bull excrement.
When one reads the actual text of the "Bill of Rights" one notices that the framers of the U.S. Constitution were very precise in their wording. For example, the 1st Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law..." which obviously applies only to the legislative body of the federal government, whereas the 2nd refers to the people. This was obviously not accidental when one looks at the events that led up to the creation of our constitution.

By ratifying the Constitution, and/or agreeing to be bound together in a union formed by said constitution, then subordinate states are required to abide by the terms of the contract that binds them. Otherwise there is no rule of law.

Chuck | April 29, 2011 6:45 PM | Reply

I made that same argument for 30 years and got nowhere. I guess I will have to live with incorporation via 14A.

Leave a comment