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

« U Pa refuses to recognize student hunting, shooting, and conservation group | Main | Boulder mass killing »

Interesting thoughts on prohibited persons

Posted by David Hardy · 21 March 2021 03:40 PM

Some thoughts on the possible impact of Lange v. California, which was recently argued in the Supreme Court. A number of the Justices seem to be skeptical, in the 4th Amendment context, of drawing lines based on the felony vs. misdemeanor distinction, and to be alert to the fact that today we have a lot of felonies that involve minor and non-dangerous conduct.

4 Comments | Leave a comment

Dave D. | March 22, 2021 8:16 AM | Reply

....The distinction between felonies and misdemeanors is hazy because it's made on an arbitrary basis. If the determination of arms possession is based on an estimation of future violence, expect courts to view emotion based " Hate speech " as a stand in for violent behavior. Political affiliation will be used to deny self defense rights. Logic and reason cannot control a system based on feelings and emotion.

Jay Dee | March 23, 2021 5:28 AM | Reply

As our training officer explained that the difference between a felony and misdemeanor was that a felony used to be eligible for the death penalty.

This line was already blurred when I attended his class in the late 1970s. As I recall either a federal or state law had recently created the crime of felony littering.

anoñymous | March 23, 2021 6:49 PM | Reply

Democrats : No person is illegal.

also Democrats : We need to expand the defintion of prohibited persons.

Michael Murray | March 23, 2021 8:57 PM | Reply

Prohibiting firearm possession by convicted felons works about as well as every other gun law. Does anyone really think the worst of the worst will not have a gun anyway? What it does do is prohibit some poor SOB who got busted, did his time, and has no intention of re-offending, from defending themselves and their family. It is one more way for the police to go fishing, one more way to apply pressure, for even as little as a single round of ammo. It is just another charge used in pursuit of a plea bargain conviction.

Leave a comment