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

« Georgia passes permitless concealed carry! | Main | Thoughts on the "war power" »

Constitutionality of banning "80% receivers"

Posted by David Hardy · 4 April 2022 11:50 PM

An interesting article.

2 Comments | Leave a comment

Anonymous | April 5, 2022 11:15 AM | Reply

While this seems like a 2A supporting article, he advocates for the continued use of what Judge Benitez in the 9th circuit called a “tripartite binary test with a sliding scale and a reasonable fit,” instead of using either the common use or history, text, and tradition tests that the USSC called for in Heller & McDonald. He also advocates for judges to decide if an activity reaches "the core" of the 2nd, which is usually whatever a judge wants it to be. Then this "core" analysis can be used to determine what interest balancing test to apply. This is what’s commonly called the 2A 2-step. Even strict scrutiny can allow a judge with a sufficiently developed vocabulary to put his thumb on the scales and approve of any regulation the state can dream up; I suspect the 9th judges would relish the challenge based on their history. It almost appears as if this article was designed & intended to show how easy it is to build an 80% or "ghost" gun, scare the muggles, and get more people clamoring for regulations. The only thing missing is the author's assertion of "I support the 2nd amendment, but . . . "

Pete | April 8, 2022 11:59 AM | Reply

Instead of addressing the real issue, violent felons being released to commit crime after crime, we get more gun laws.

Leave a comment