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

« CA antigun senator bites the bullet | Main | More on Senator Yee »

Article on McDonald online

Posted by David Hardy · 27 March 2014 03:03 PM

Here it is. Fifty pages, 213 fns. It did take a while to write.

· Chicago gun case

5 Comments | Leave a comment

JohnS | March 27, 2014 4:10 PM | Reply

I think that's an awful web site.

Old eyes need larger type; the site allows expansion, but it's 'unstable', wobbles around.

Stick-in-the-mud old-format kind of guy ...

rich | March 28, 2014 7:37 AM | Reply

Stick:
you can expand to full page mode then change to single page it gets readable at that point

rich | March 28, 2014 7:58 AM | Reply

Sorry that should be full screen mode

Anonymous | March 29, 2014 6:57 PM | Reply

Looks fascinating!

When will this be downloadable as a pdf?

Nor'Easter | March 31, 2014 1:14 PM | Reply

Nice work on an excellent theme; great coverage of historical antecedents, well done and very perceptive. I am awed and would have commented sooner but - just as it took so long to write - it also took awhile to read.

Your exhaustive analysis - stripped down to it's essentials - seems to prove beyond doubt that people in a position to do so will tend to come up with an outcome they wish to see, and then bend the reasoning to fit that outcome - with varying degrees of success.

The McDonald case seems to boil down to, "You wanna do incorporation? We'll show you incorporation!" The payback of the right? Exactly! This stuff works both ways.

Aside from some truly ghastly decisions such as Reynolds v Sims 1964, which destroyed the upper houses of the states and forever wrecked the delicate rural-urban balance so necessary to a stable society, I think it's mainly been the religion clause of the 1st Amendment and the right of "privacy" (abortion) that have been a problem since they've been used to restrict one right (free exercise) and legalize what some would call murder and most people don't like that.

Whatever the deprecations of the Warren Court, the general acceptance of incorporation has become a accepted fact of American life. In a time of ever-increasing regulation and government intrusion, people seem to like having some iron-clad rights reserved for them and there will probably be more of the same but from a Libertarian-Conservative viewpoint - Hurray!

As you again point out, this new "all-purpose" reasoning will probably be the wave of the future. The tortured upholding of ObamaCare by Roberts seems to show that.

I think we've reached the point where the Supremes are accepted as a final arbiter simply because - in this time of hardened political positions - we just want a decision - whatever it is. Never mind precedent, original intent or whatever else, we just want a ruling. All the more reason to control - to whatever extent possible - who gets on the court in the first place. It's all political now.

As far as firearms, my main regret is that both Heller and McDonald still require some form of application and approval from the authorities - not good. If I remember correctly, didn't Scalia rather wistfully comment that he would have ruled for possession as a right but this was not applied for by either petitioner. In the meanwhile, there are several challenges working their way to the Supremes as we speak. How do you think they will do?

Leave a comment