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 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« So much for "common sense" gun laws | Main | Feds move to un-seal court records in Brian Terry murder »

Next Generatin RKBA Scholars conference

Posted by David Hardy · 11 January 2012 09:06 AM

Summary here. I was there, and it was quite good... essentially a meeting of 25 new law profs, or those who are seeking to become law profs, and who are interested in the right to arms. At the evening dinner, Don Kates was presented with an award for his critical role in developing the modern (and correct) view of the right to arms. In 1983, he got his article into Michigan Law Review, one of the top five or ten. Before then, we'd been publishing in the lesser reviews. Hitting a major review was critical because the major names in con law read those, and it resulted in the major names publishing their own articles.

Judge Silberman of the DC Circuit, who wrote its opinion in Parker/Heller finding for an individual right, spoke at dinner. He was great. I learned one interesting practice tip. If you're heading for the Supreme Court, and at the Circuit level you lose before the three judge panel BUT know there is a favorable judge that wasn't on the panel, move for rehearing en banc (before the entire Circuit, rather than just a panel), even tho you know it will be denied. That gives the favorable judge(s) a chance to write a dissent from the denial of rehearing, and the dissent may carry weight with the Supreme Court when it decides whether to take the case.

UPDATE: in the 9th Circuit, rehearing en banc gets complicated, but I think all the 20+ judges get a vote, and hence a chance to dissent. If accepted, which rarely happens, it's a roll of the dice, since it's not heard by all the judges, but by a panel of ten plus the chief judge.

1 Comment | Leave a comment

Harold | January 12, 2012 7:09 AM | Reply

How well would that tip work for the 9th Circuit, which as I remember reading is so big en banc rehearings aren't before the full set? How do they decide on subsets?

(Hmmm, doing sub-set en banc rehearings might be an additional reason they're reversed so often.)

Leave a comment