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

« Now, this is taking the offensive! | Main | I don't *think* this is an April Fools article »

Legal challenge to recent NY law

Posted by David Hardy · 1 April 2013 09:49 AM

Con law folks say it has serious merit.

5 Comments | Leave a comment

Brian | April 1, 2013 11:40 AM | Reply

I would ask that the lawyers arguing these cases remind themselves and the courts that the 2nd Amendment says nothing about "self defense" or "hunting", so the arguments that you don't need more than 10 rounds (or 7 or 30) to kill a deer or a rapist are not relevant.

Stephen | April 1, 2013 1:20 PM | Reply

Sadly the merits of the case are not important, all that matters are which administration nominated the judge/justice. I know there are some that do care, but almost all of those are conservatively picked. Few (if any) from the "progressive" side can look at the gun issue from a strictly constitutional viewpoint.

Jeff | April 1, 2013 1:27 PM | Reply

It would seem that Posner (IL concealed carry case) had the integrity to look beyond his own opinions.

Jim | April 1, 2013 3:33 PM | Reply

I agree, Posner's intellectual honesty was a breath of fresh air from a federal court. Too bad its the exception to the rule.

Stephen | April 2, 2013 12:49 AM | Reply

There are some who care, it's true. But so few.

I've just had this romantic notions that Judges should be guardians of the law, whether they like it or not, and not policy makers. You should get pretty much the same interpretation of the law from any judge.

*sigh* was that ever the case?

Leave a comment