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

« Ray Nagin indicted | Main | Piers Morgan, a gunny? »

"Mafia Bodyguard" ban

Posted by David Hardy · 19 January 2013 09:57 AM

A thought: the MAIG mayors have had a remarkable run of felony convictions. I wonder if anyone has pointed out to them that a convicted felon cannot employ armed bodyguards.

18 USC 922(g) contains the prohibitions on possession of firearms. The next subsection reads:

"(h) It shall be unlawful for any individual, who to that individual’s knowledge and while being employed for any person described in any paragraph of subsection (g) of this section, in the course of such employment—

(1) to receive, possess, or transport any firearm or ammunition in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce; or

(2) to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce."

The Supreme Court long ago (and I think quite wrongly) read the interstate commerce nexus out of the statute, essentially saying that it covers any gun possession.

6 Comments | Leave a comment

Craig | January 19, 2013 8:22 PM | Reply

I'm betting that they get around that by claiming that "They" don't employ the detail, the city does. Akin to being under police protection as a felon while waiting to testify at a trial.

Don't you know that the restrictive laws are for THEE and not for ME?

ashad hossain | January 2, 2014 8:51 PM | Reply

) It shall be unlawful for any individual, who to that individual’s knowledge and while being employed for any person described in any paragraph of subsection (g) of this section, in the course of suc

ashad hossain | January 2, 2014 8:53 PM | Reply

"They" don't employ the detail, the city does. Akin to being under police protection as a felon while waiting to testify at a trial.

ashad hossain | February 21, 2014 7:26 PM | Reply

to receive, possess, or transport any firearm or ammunition in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce; or

ashad hossain | February 22, 2014 7:46 PM | Reply

the MAIG mayors have had a remarkable run of felony convictions. I wonder if anyone has pointed out to them that a convicted felon cannot employ armed bodyguards.

ashad hossain | February 22, 2014 7:47 PM | Reply

have had a remarkable run of felony convictions. I wonder if anyone has pointed out to them that a convicted felon cannot employ armed bodyguards.

Leave a comment