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

« Appleseed Project | Main | Wash Times writer makes a convert »

Off at the NRA convention

Posted by David Hardy · 14 April 2012 07:17 AM

It's said 70,000 people are expected to attend. In the meantime, the Washington Post asks, "Is Gun Control Dead?", and Bloomberg News editorializes,"You won, so tone it down, OK?".

8 Comments | Leave a comment

Frank | April 14, 2012 9:01 PM | Reply

We will have won when concealed carry is allowed in all 50 states and it as easy to get a firearm as it is in say Nevada or Washington State.

wrangler5 | April 14, 2012 10:19 PM | Reply

AND there are no restrictions on where carry, concealed or otherwise, is allowed. (Yes I mean schools, churches, hospitals, police stations, public buildings generally, trains and buses; of course not jail cells, maybe not courtrooms; I'm still thinking about airplanes.) Generally, if a state can prohibit carrying a Bible or Koran someplace it can prohibit carrying a gun there, otherwise not absent a powerful state interest that can be met no other way, and such prohibited areas must be uniform nationwide.

Gregory Markle | April 15, 2012 3:46 PM | Reply

Did they "tone it down" after the Brady Law and assault weapons ban were passed or did they continue to push for even more restrictions? We still have to work on universal carry and reciprocity, the Hughes Amendment, correcting the loopholes in FOPA, establishing punitive measures for government officials who attempt to circumvent 2A rights, etc. Or maybe they don't understand that when it comes to 2A rights, this *IS* the toned down manner of supporting them!!

Matthew Carberry | April 15, 2012 4:20 PM | Reply

wranglers,

"Any place you can lawfully go in the normal course of business", is the shorthand I use.

So, if it is an "off-limits to the general public", like an "employee's only" area, private property that does not welcome the public as part of its nature, or someplace with legitimately secured entry, such as locked doors or actual searching, then I don't have a real problem with carry being restricted.

But if folks, gov't or private, want to claim someplace is "sensitive" enough to bar carry but not "sensitive" enough to absolutely bar all access by the public, they better put their money where their mouth is and prove it with actual physical security, not just a sign.

And, if you didn't know, carry on planes was legal (only airline policy controlled) until 1971 and wasn't truly enforceable until magnetometers were mandated in 1973.

Woody W Woodward | April 16, 2012 11:16 AM | Reply

Note to Bloomberg:

We haven't won yet. The word "infringed" has a period immediately following it. There are thousands of federal and state infringements still in existence and those violate only the 2nd Amendment.

Don't even attempt to lull us into a sense of false security. We have a long way to go.

[W3]

Marcus Poulin | April 17, 2012 12:39 AM | Reply

Frank Washington has not been a gun-friendly State. And has been Very Unfriendly to NFA at least since Governor Lowry in 1994

Law Degree Online | April 17, 2012 6:08 AM | Reply

I’m not necessarily convinced possession of a firearm should be allowed everywhere, per se. That being said, my opinion isn’t relevant here, it’s all about what our beloved-and-so-infrequently-followed Constitution grants as rights. And no, limiting possession of guns in any way isn’t listed as something the government is allowed to do. Whatever my opinion on the matter is, I have no legal ground to back it up. - Sarah

David McCleary | April 17, 2012 7:06 AM | Reply

@ Sarah/Law degree on line the constitution does not grant rights "Constitution grants as rights."
It simply reaffirms that that already exists. Big difference.

Leave a comment