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

« junk science | Main | Harvard students search roommate's room, find guns, force her to move out »

Mance case petition to Supreme Court

Posted by David Hardy · 30 November 2018 01:51 PM

Here's the press release, I don't have the petition for cert. yet. The Mance case is the one challenging GCA 68's ban on purchases of handguns from FFLs in other states. Mance, as I recall, is in the District of Columbia, which has only one real FFL, who charges steep prices. We should soon know whether the appointment of Justice Kavanaugh makes a difference in the cert. count. At the moment we know we have two votes. What is needed is four to accept and of course five to win.

Figure that we had five in Heller and McDonald... why did we have only two voting for cert thereafter? A big possibility is that the missing three votes were unsure of the outcome if they took the case. Did the replacement of Kennedy by Kavanaugh change that assessment? I suppose we are about to find out.

6 Comments | Leave a comment

FWB | November 30, 2018 6:59 PM | Reply

Once again, if the Commerce Clause and the 2nd were read as they are written, we wouldn't have this issue and there wouldn't be a multitude of cases for the judges to screw up.

The Commerce Clause was SOLELY about managing the various government regulations NOT the things being transported and NOT things that affect commerce. Things that affect commerce would be money, bankruptcies, etc and those being separately and explicitly granted proves that the current interpretations are invalid because the current interpretation makes those grants of power unnecessary.

The 2nd leaves no opening for federal or state regulation of Arms. States may have laws concerning the use of those Arms BUT not about the Arms themselves except the SC screwed things up in 1833 in Barron.

rick | December 1, 2018 6:44 PM | Reply

The way the courts interpret the Constitution these days reminds me of the Eloi and the library in H.G. Well's, The Time Machine; they keep the books around for decoration because they do not interpret their original meaning.

rick | December 1, 2018 6:48 PM | Reply

I argue 1803 Marbury is worse.

Mike Murray | December 2, 2018 1:18 PM | Reply

All the blue states will cry like babies and oppose this. Can't have residents breaking the chains by driving across a state line, right? Would a dealer in another state be required to ask for a FOID card, etc.?

Anonymous | December 3, 2018 8:33 AM | Reply

The 2nd amendment, like many amendments in the Bill of Rights, has multiple parts.
The 2nd amendment reserves the right to keep and bear arms to individual persons, while also affirming the authority of free states to form and arm militias. These two things are not mutually exclusive, and doesn't give the state any power to restrict individually owned arms. This is reinforced by the 10th amendment.
The tenth amendment plainly tells both the feds and the states hands off individual rights:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, OR to the people."

Publius | December 4, 2018 12:37 PM | Reply

@Mike

Current procedure for long guns is not to sell you something you can’t own where you live. So yes, they would ask for a FOID unless that also changes or gets struck down.

Leave a comment