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

« Grandmother guns down two robbers | Main | Requirement that CLEOs certify NFA firearms applicants passed in OK »

Alan Korwin wins First Amendment case

Posted by David Hardy · 8 May 2014 03:57 PM

Story here. Alan and some others sponsored an ad on bus stands which the city of Phoenix rejected. It's isn't the clearest opinion, but seems to recognize that his ad would have met the city's 2011 standards (which required a commercial message, but not an exclusively commercial one), and so rejecting it was a First Amendment infraction.

1 Comment | Leave a comment

Wayne Conrad | May 8, 2014 5:10 PM | Reply

Paragraph 20 boggles me. As written, it seems that the only criteria for deciding whether the city has been fair in its enforcement of transit advertising standards is that the city reviewed all ads, and that the city itself thought that it did so fairly:

"there is no indication the City has allowed any advertisement to be posted without reviewing it pursuant to the Standards or that the City accepted an advertisement believing it to be inconsistent with the Standards. Accordingly, upon this record, we find the City has not abandoned the bus shelters’ status as nonpublic fora."

The next time I'm accused of being unfair, I think I'll point out that, since I think I'm being fair, then I am.

I'm probably missing some legal subtlety.

Leave a comment