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 6.6.2
Site Design by Sekimori

« Win against LAPD over refusal to give out CCW applications | Main | I know politics is strange at times, but.... »

Thought on McDonald and Heller dissents

Posted by David Hardy · 13 June 2011 05:45 PM

The legislative history (and evidence of public understanding) of the 14th Amendment quite clearly, to my mind, that the Amendment was meant to require States to observe the Second Amendment.

The Heller dissent reads the Second Amendment as intended solely to protect the right of States and their peoples to be prepared to resist forcefully Federal decisions that are seen as tyrannical.

What are the odds that the RECONSTRUCTION Congresses would have meant to affirm the right of States and their peoples to resist Federal decisions with armed force? Section three of the Amendment (today forgotten) went on to bar from public office anyone who had taken an oath of allegiance to the US and thereafter "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same...."

4 Comments | Leave a comment

Gene Hoffman | June 13, 2011 6:17 PM | Reply

LOL!

-Gene

D. Laden | June 13, 2011 8:27 PM | Reply

Actually, it's maddening!

Dan Hamilton | June 14, 2011 8:44 AM | Reply

You assume that these people are trying to be honest and truthful. That is wrong. In their minds the ends justify any means.

They will do and say anything to destroy the 2ed.

Shootin' Buddy | June 16, 2011 9:01 AM | Reply

I've often thought out loud if the dissents in Heller and McDonald understand that they are in agreement with Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens.

Leave a comment