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

« Good news on FOIA | Main | Media bias »

Interesting insight on one citation in Heller

Posted by David Hardy · 4 November 2011 04:26 PM

The Michigan Bar Journal has an article, by Federal District Judge Avern Cohn, on how the Heller majority came to cite an 1829 case that equated the right to arms with freedom of speech.

· Heller aftermath

5 Comments | Leave a comment

Law Prof | November 4, 2011 7:45 PM | Reply

A Carter appointee trying to make light of Justice Scalia's citation to US v. Shelden for valid polint. So what's new?

Jim | November 5, 2011 12:15 AM | Reply

So he is accusing Scalia of cooking the books, so to speak? And what is his opinion of Griswald?

kalashnikat | November 5, 2011 1:47 PM | Reply

And why use a Russian Nagant pistol for the frontispiece...why not an American Colt, Smith or Remington of the same vintage? Sacrilege.

Alice | November 6, 2011 2:37 AM | Reply

For the record, the brief that judge's piece says swayed Justice Scalia is "Brief of the Cato Institute and History Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm," with C. Kevin Marshall as Counsel of Record. Marshall is a partner at Jones Day; he clerked for Justice Thomas, has his J.D. from U. of Chicago, and is a member of Phi Beta Kappa.

Malcolm is -- well, anyone who needs explanation of who Joyce Malcolm is needs to go back to step one in the RKBA academic work.

Defenze | November 8, 2011 11:24 AM | Reply

The early 19th Century opinions annoy me to the extent that the Judges use language such as "The Constitution of the United States also GRANTS to the citizens the right to keep and bear arms. But the GRANT of this PRIVILEGE cannot be construed..." We so argue that the Constution at best "recognised", "Sets forth" or "protects" the right to Keep and Bear Arms...(along with the other enumerated basic rights)......and then to characterize the aforestated "right" then as a mere "privilege" in the following line is troubling. Obviously these Judges had no part in the Constitution, but one would think a mere 40-50 years after it was argued and passed the next generation of above average lawyers and Justices would have a better grasp of history and what was accomplished by our leaders.

Leave a comment