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

« A timely book | Main | My new book, on Dred Scott »

"Sorry, New York. The Second Amendment applies outside the home"

Posted by David Hardy · 29 January 2019 08:26 AM

A Washington Post letter to the editor from Joyce Malcolm.

2 Comments | Leave a comment

FWB | January 29, 2019 8:56 AM | Reply

As I will continue to point out, the Supreme Court of the USA caused these problems with state laws. Marshall totally blew it with his call about the Bill of Rights. Madison did want to put the various parts in the original Constitution but was repudiated so any sentient being would then recognize that Madison's desires mean nothing to understanding the full meaning of the Bill of Rights. Those who cling to Madison should know that HE determined that Congress was NOT to set their own pay when the question arose in the 1787 Convention. See the Debates, it's there. So why not hold Congress to that standard.

Back to the Bill of Rights: Rawle (1825/29) taught in his View of the Constitution that the Bill of Rights bound ALL governmental entities, state and federal alike. Yet in 1833, the SC in Barron v Baltimore decided that NONE of the Bill of Rights bound the States, totally ignoring the supremacy clause and the FACT that nothing in Amendments 2 through 10 (actually 4-12) specifically applied solely to the federal government. In fact, current judicial decisions concerning the 1st Amendment are more incorrect. If the SC had properly understood and properly determined the extent of the Bill of Rights, that is to make sure the commonly held beliefs were to pass to new states, then the Bill of Rights would have been recognized as applying to all governments and we would not have this hodgepodge of laws at the state level. But then too the SC could not extraconstitutionally expand it authority be making correct decisions. By making decisions such as Barron, the court all but set their expansion on track to the lie it is today, that is being the ultimate arbiter of all. They ignore the fact that it is the People who are at the top level, NOT the judges. It is the People who have the final say but the People have been co-opted by systematic lies taught through government schools. Read Blackstone sometime a better grasp of the relationship of People to their government. Maybe a little De Juri Regni and of course Locke.

Anonymous | January 30, 2019 7:24 AM | Reply

The government of New York has now infringed on the 2nd amendment to the point that it is not afraid to trample the rest of the people's rights. This has historically been the problem with state governments as shown by previous court cases involving incorporation of constitutional rights. These cases would never have been necessary if states had respected the rights of the people.

States have argued and won cases of federal overreach based on the tenth amendment. The tenth doesn't stop at states rights though, it sets a hierarchy of rights with rights of the people at the top.

For those that say state restrictions are ok, the 10th amendment makes a pretty plain statement about rights reserved to the people:
"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."

Leave a comment