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

« Civil Rights figure calls for incarcerating more African-Americans | Main | A local amusement »

SCOTUS: "reckless" rather than "intentional" DV results in gun possession ban

Posted by David Hardy · 27 June 2016 09:13 AM

Voisne v. US, handed down a few hours ago. Justice Thomas dissents, with Justice Sotomayor [correction, not Kagan, thanks for pointing it out] joining two of the three parts of his dissent. Parts one and two argue (convincingly, to my eye) the interpretation of the statute, part three argues that in light of the Second Amendment, the statute should be read narrowly to avoid creating a constitutional issue.

5 Comments | Leave a comment

CDR_D | June 27, 2016 12:15 PM | Reply

Looks like it was Sotomayor joining the first two parts of the Thomas dissent. The third part refers to *Heller* and *McDonald*, and Sotomayor thinks those were wrongly decided.

Kagan wrote the majority opn.

FWB | June 27, 2016 12:47 PM | Reply

Why is it that it took 200+ yrs to unconstitutionally restrict firearms? Do you think there was no domestic violence in the 18th and 19th centuries? Do you think we are more civilized today? Ha!

The Constitution grants absolutely no police power over Arms. The 2nd prohibits government infringement over the Right to keep and bear Arms. The States could punish the use of an Arm if used improperly but neither the feds nor the states have any legitimate, constitutional authority to prohibit Arms to individuals. The courts of the US have done more to destroy the Constitution and the government it created than any other group. The courts have unilaterally made crap up from thin air that has absolutely no footing in the Constitution.

It is time the People tell the courts to shove it.

Mark-1 | June 27, 2016 3:53 PM | Reply

6 ta 2!!! There's justice in its abstract form here, but DAMN if I can see it or understand it.

Anonymous | June 28, 2016 9:20 AM | Reply

Eternal vigilance time. The attack continues with
Senator Casey , Pa. introducing S - 3053. " hate crime misdemeanors " would be grounds to STRIP AWAY rights. Such a law would be enlarged in scope , rapidly , to include ANY minor offense .
Conservative speech = ' hate speech '....... No gun for you ! Speeding ticket ? ....Sorry , you lose. Where does it END ?

Anon | June 29, 2016 1:29 AM | Reply

And then there are those that fall victim to 922(g)(8), where a court official checks the box next to Firearms, yet the court has not found you to be a domestic partner, doesn't find you a credible threat. But because of a checkbox marked on an Order of Protection, you can no longer possess firearms or ammunition for the duration of the protection order. Without the financial capability to appeal, and no rights group to back you up, because your case will not effect a large group, or make a significant difference. You just have to wait, and or go black powder.

Sure some will be sympathetic, but who will help, when the only one affected is me? Not GOA, not NRA, not NAGR.

Leave a comment