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

« Latest on Project Gunwalker | Main | Puerto Rican case recognized right to carry arms »

Judge rules there is no fundamental right to "bear" or carry arms

Posted by David Hardy · 17 May 2011 12:50 PM

The case is Richards v. County of Yolo, and the pdf opinion is here. Josh Blackman has posted excellent discussion of the ruling.

On a very quick read, the court argues that Heller and McDonald only related to keeping in the home, and as to everything else.... the court essentially engages in circular reasoning.

· Chicago aftermath

7 Comments | Leave a comment

Critic | May 17, 2011 2:44 PM | Reply

Since the Heller court gave us the absurd "in common use" test, it's kind of hard to criticize the other side for baseless rulings. If our Heller five consider the Second Amendment obsolete and approve infringement of our Second Amendment right to military arms like the M16, then why should we expect lower courts to respect the Second Amendment and consider it still valid in modern times? The Heller precedent is to make up whatever excuse you can think of, no matter how ridiculous, to get the result you want.

John | May 17, 2011 3:16 PM | Reply

My favorite quote from the opinion:

Approximately 175 years ago, a curator in the national archives splashed ink on the official copy of the bill of rights. Since the 1790's, US Citizens have actually only enjoyed the right to keep and *hear* arms.

A widespread practice in colonial America was for British soldiers to plug the ears of colonists who attempted to engage in target practice. It is this, and not the right of self protection, that the amendment was actually written to protect.

TinCan Assassin | May 17, 2011 3:51 PM | Reply

One does actually read and study the Constitution in Law School, correct? As the Law of the Land, and not as an "interesting historical document" like the Magna Carta or the Mayflower Compact? It is still the Law of the Land right? It hasn't been repealed outright?

How soon do I start quartering troops in my home?

Matthew Carberry | May 17, 2011 5:28 PM | Reply

The below quote could bite them in two ways. First, if the CA Senate gets rid of unloaded open carry that "other reasonable means" goes away.

Second, and more important on appeal I think, is that Heller -expressly- stated that requiring unloaded storage in the home, behind the security of locked doors and walls, was an unConstitutional burden on the right.

Since the Court has tacitly said bearing must be allowed in some form, how much more of a burden is requiring that carry, whether OC or CC, to be unloaded when the bearer doesn't have the protection (and time delay to get the gun into action) of walls around them as they do in the home?

Under the statutory scheme, even if Plaintiffs are denied a concealed weapon license for self-defense purposes from Yolo County, they are still more than free to keep an unloaded weapon nearby their person, load it, and use it for self-defense in circumstances that may occur in a public setting. Yolo County’s policy does not substantially burden Plaintiffs’ right to bear and
keep arms. Therefore, rational basis review applies.

5thofNov | May 17, 2011 5:47 PM | Reply

It appears that the liberal judges do not believe in the second amendment....time is on our side and the "walls" are closing in around them. One way or another, this right shall not be infringed.

475okh | May 18, 2011 5:47 AM | Reply

We now have a system of government of the elite, by the elite, and for the elite.

Rich | May 19, 2011 3:55 PM | Reply

475OKH: sorry you have had that for some time now - it is just getting much more noticeable. I suggest a re-reading of Animal Farm

Leave a comment