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 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« What is known about the Las Vegas murderers... | Main | NY justice »

This country is in the best of hands...

Posted by David Hardy · 10 June 2014 04:03 PM

Chuck Schumer shows his expertise in constitutional law: ""I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what's being proposed here, he'd agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute."

Jefferson was actually out of country just then. He was minister to France from 1784 to 1789, returning just in time to be appointed Secretary of State and to engross the copies of the bill of rights which were sent to the States for ratification.

3 Comments | Leave a comment

fwb | June 10, 2014 5:08 PM | Reply

Does anyone expect any congresscritter to known ANYTHING about the Constitution? They have no idea what is says, does, limits. They have no idea who wrote what. Gouvenor Morris actually wrote most of the document along with Madison and I forget the third member of the Committee on Style. Madison put down his thoughts on the Bill of Rights but only after George Mason pushed and pushed. And Madison's thoughts were repudiated by the final form and placement of the Bill of Rights at the end, which by the way, made the Bill of Rights applicable to the States without any BS incorporation. The SC screwed up the application of the supreme law of the land in Barron. Rawle (1829) had it correct when he wrote the Bill of Rights bind both the federal government and the states. Those who believe otherwise simply are ignorant of the Bill of Rights. Intent is irrelevant because no one can prove the intent of ALL those who voted for the amendments and the intent on 1 or 2 is meaningless to the big picture. The clear and simple language of all provide absolutely no limitation as to their extent and since the BoR are the acceptable of the People, they can only apply to all governments. The only amendment to be restrained in its applicability was the First which was really the third demonstrating that the writers of the BoR singled out a specific amendment to be applicable to just the fed and left the others open to all government. And remember the main reason Madison was reticent to add a BoR was that the federal government was granted no authority to legislate in those areas. He feared, and that fear has been realized, that stupid people would think that the inclusion of the BoR indicated the feds h=could have legislated in those areas if it were not for the BoR. Those who think that way are wrong.

rspock | June 10, 2014 6:02 PM | Reply

Unfortunately for us, Progressives never let the truth get in the way of their agenda.

SPQR | June 12, 2014 10:58 PM | Reply

Jefferson ... Jefferson ... that name sounds familiar ...

Wouldn't that be the same Jefferson that paid Callander to print some pretty vile slanders of his political opponents?

Leave a comment