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

« Supreme Court GCA case | Main | Hunter Biden FOIA »

Man defends self in NYC, faces two dozen criminal charges

Posted by David Hardy · 23 June 2023 09:46 AM

Story here. None of the charges relate to his shooting of a robber, which the city accepts as justified. No, the charges are gun-law related. A judge set bail at $50,000.... because he felt there had been too many shootings.

1 Comment | Leave a comment

FW | June 26, 2023 8:39 AM | Reply

It's always been the predilections of the judges and not law that determines how the courts work.

And we can thank the SC for the 1833 Barron decision that allowed states to pass laws that violate the 2nd since the 2nd has never been fully incorporated (another lie) under the 14th. The courts should simply repudiate Barron and state that eh Bill of Rights, except for the 1st, bind all levels of government. That however would require the courts to give up power that the courts have stolen.

Leave a comment