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

« Memorable words | Main | There is hope yet... »

A bit busy...

Posted by David Hardy · 23 October 2012 09:54 AM

I haven't blogged much, because I've been working on two articles. One is a comprehensive piece on how to restore firearm rights in a variety of situations, and the other is an exploration of the Dred Scott case. Just as one indication of how much the players in the latter were really pawns in a far bigger game: neither is correctly named in the court papers. Dred Scott's real name was Ethelred Scott. His opponent, named as John Sandford, actually spelled his last name Sanford.

And although Sanford stipulated that he claimed Scott as his slave, that claim was utterly bogus. The real claimant was his sister, Irene. But you can understand why his sister wanted to keep her name out of the papers ... she had married an antislavery congressman. (And she didn't succeed in keeping it out of the newspapers, either: right after the case was decided, all the pro-slavery papers began running the story of their ownership.).

Update: the ruling got a LOT of debate going, of course.... in particular, a fellow named Abraham Lincoln used it for his "House Divided Speech," saying that it, plus affairs in Kansas, proved a pro-slavery conspiracy encompassing Congress (which had passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, repealing the Missouri Compromise), the President (who was pushing a pro-slavery constitution for Kansas, even tho the majority of settlers there were anti-slavery) and the Court.

I do see signs of jury nullification in some cases, esp. where a slave owner sued someone he claimed had aided the slave's escape. And Dred Scott's Missouri attorney wrote his Washington DC one with a concern that the Court might be reluctant to accept a free black as a citizen, because then any alleged slave being held under the Fugitive Slave Act could invoke diversity jurisdiction, and get a jury trial. (The Fugitive Slave Act was incredibly draconian in terms of procedure. No jury. If the slave-State court issued a warrant for the arrest of the alleged slave, the receiving court was required to enforce it without further investigation. Of course, with no fingerprints or photo ID, it often had nothing but a general description to go by, or at most a slave owner or his agent saying that this fellow was an escaped slave. Any black in a free State was thus at constant risk of legal kidnapping. Oh, and if the judge found the person was free, the judge got only half the fee that he did if he found he was a slave. Seriously, that was the arrangement.)

1 Comment | Leave a comment

Peter | October 23, 2012 3:57 PM | Reply

It would be interesting to see what, if any, connections you might observe between the aftermath of the Dred Scott decision and an anti-government backlash. Specifically in terms of jury nullification being used to acquit those accused of harboring runaway slaves.

Leave a comment