A recently authenticated 1775 "broadside" notice published by the local Revolutionary "committee of correspondence" in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, urges pacifist conscientious objectors to pay sufficient money to the Revolutionary War effort to dispel any notion they were merely shirking a patriot's duty.
AP has the story here.
06:15 PM in Second Amendment Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)
Great story in the New Yorker on Clarence Thomas' intellectual leadership--says he is "probably the most conservative Justice to serve on the Court since the nineteen-thirties" and notes his wife's long involvement with the Tea Party revolution.
07:02 AM in Second Amendment Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)
To our Founders, the right to bear arms was not merely a right useful for maintaining balance of power. More than that, regular carry was conducive to good character, absolutely essential to a nation of free men. This point is eloquently made in Eric Raymond's essay "Ethics from the Barrel of a Gun: What Bearing Weapons Teaches About the Good Life" - a quick and enjoyable read I first discovered when a student brought it to my first concealed carry class three years ago. Eric says his essay was inspired by a longer essay "A Nation of Cowards". I note also that the title of his essay appears to be spun off the famous Mao quote: "Politics grows from the barrel of a gun." On this I actually agree with Mao, but Eric goes further, making this important point: The regular bearing of arms preserves the dignity and character of a free people.
Also, take a look at my post on the Christian view of self-defense. That post links to a number of articles, including an excellent "must-read" by Dave Kopel. [Kopel cites Professor Volokh's use of the term "pacifist-aggressive" to describe those who wish to impose their pacifist beliefs on others. Interestingly, a few nights ago my wife (who like Volokh, is originally from Soviet Ukraine) used the same term to describe communists. We were watching a documentary on Muzzolini and she used the term to distinguish fascists, who emphasized use of violent militia groups, from the "pacifist-aggressive" communists who better hid the violence (mass starvation, KGB visiting at night).]
And here are my thoughts on how someone like Ayn Rand could fail to appreciate the right to bear arms.
04:07 PM in READY.GOD, Second Amendment Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)
The folks over at oyez.org have made available audio of the oral arguments in McDonald v. Chicago. Listen to history being made as the Supreme Court decides to uphold everyone's right to bear arms for self-defense:
Mcdonald opinion announced
10:31 AM in Second Amendment Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)
Opposing Views: Obama Bans More than 100,000 American-Made Rifles (David Kopel). excerpt:
As rifles, they are especially well-suited to community defense in an emergency, as in the cases of community defense following Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and Hurricane Andrew in 1992. Along with AR-15 type rifles, the M1 rifles are the quintessential firearms of responsible citizenship, precisely the type of firearms which civic responsibility organizations such as the Appleseed Project teach people how to use.
04:31 PM in Second Amendment Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
NSSF just released its July data on background checks. Unadjusted, the July 2010 figures were up 10% over July 2009, which itself was well into the timeframe when checks were skyrocketing. Adjusted to take out the checks for CCW permits and leave only those relating to gun sales, it's up 4.3% over 2009. I had read that there did seem to be a surge after the last election, focused on guns that could face bans, but that this faded away within three months. What's left is an enormous and sustained increase in new firearms purchases.
05:26 PM in Second Amendment Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
The introduction of the flintlock coincided with the largest decline in homicide in English history. The homicide rate plunged to 6 per 100K in the 1600’s. The English homicide rate continued to decline slowly and steadily until well into the 20th century. For example, in 1900 the homicide rate was 0.96 per 100K.
06:03 PM in Second Amendment Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Get a free 3' x 5' flag at: http://7-4-1776.US
[Simply attend Family Protection Clinic, sign up for free newsletter, and choose one of three historical flag types.]
From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, excerpt:
The concept of an “appeal to heaven” is an important concept in Locke’s thought. Locke assumes that people, when they leave the state of nature, create a government with some sort of constitution that specifies which entities are entitled to exercise which powers. Locke also assumes that these powers will be used to protect the rights of the people and to promote the public good. In cases where there is a dispute between the people and the government about whether the government is fulfilling its obligations, there is no higher human authority to which one can appeal. The only appeal left, for Locke, is the appeal to God. The “appeal to heaven,” therefore, involves taking up arms against your opponent and letting God judge who is in the right.
04:26 PM in Right to Life, Second Amendment Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Since 1975, The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has favored handgun control. In fact, the 1975 USCCB statement called for "truly comprehensive control," and it endorsed several interim steps to regulate the use and sale of handguns, including: a cooling off period before a sale; a ban on "Saturday Night Specials"; registration of guns; licensing of owners; and better enforcement of laws relating to manufacture, importation, and sale of handguns. In 1995, the USCCB wrote of intensifying "our advocacy for national policies that address violence, including . . . the availability of drugs and dangerous weapons." Despite the stand of the bishops, all five of the votes in the McDonald majority came from Catholic justices: Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito. The sixth Catholic justice, Sotomayor, voted with the dissent. In light of the teaching by the bishops, one has to wonder about the impact of the McDonald decision.
02:57 PM in READY.GOD, Second Amendment Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
The most important of these men, to me, was my father.
02:03 PM in Gun Control = Racism, Second Amendment Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
The mission of GUNTRUST.ORG, Professional Law Corporation, is to provide planning options for DYNASTIC FAMILY PROTECTION with values-based incentives for multi-generational firearms training, in addition to conventional tax planning, estate planning and asset protection planning. Read the full article - Our Mission: Dynastic Family Protection (LawNews.TV)
09:55 AM in California, Concealed Carry, Dignity of Women, Genocide & Disarmament, Gun Control = Racism, Gun Safety, Gun-Free Zone Shootings, Lenin's Opiate, Leviathan, Mass Confiscation of Firearms in US, Notable Defensive Gun Uses, Open Carry, Physician, Heal Thyself, READY.GOD, Right to Life, Second Amendment Activism, Second Amendment Scholarship, Survival Measures, Travel | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
One recurring debate among scholars studying the paradox is whether the paradox justifies a change on the Court from outcome-based voting (as described above) to some form of issue-based voting. I have weighed in on this and argued that the paradox can be easily manipulated by judges and lawyers even in an issue-based voting system, but the debate is sure to be reinvigorated after McDonald. After all, in an issue-based voting world, Monday’s headlines would have declared that Chicago won and the Second Amendment is applicable only to the federal government.
07:52 AM in Second Amendment Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Coburn: I'm asking you, Elena Kagan, do you personally believe there is a fundamental right in this area? Do you agree with Blackstone [in] the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense? He didn't say that was a constitutional right. He said that's a natural right. And what I'm asking you is, do you agree with that? Kagan: Senator Coburn, to be honest with you, I don't have a view of what are natural rights, independent of the Constitution. And my job as a justice will be to enforce and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States. Coburn: So you wouldn't embrace what the Declaration of Independence says, that we have certain God-given, inalienable rights that aren't given in the Constitution that are ours, ours alone, and that a government doesn't give those to us? Kagan: Senator Coburn, I believe that the Constitution is an extraordinary document, and I'm not saying I do not believe that there are rights pre-existing the Constitution and the laws. But my job as a justice is to enforce the Constitution and the laws. Coburn: Well, I understand that. I'm not talking about as a justice. I'm talking about Elena Kagan. What do you believe? Are there inalienable rights for us? Do you believe that? Kagan: Senator Coburn, I think that the question of what I believe as to what people's rights are outside the Constitution and the laws, that you should not want me to act in any way on the basis of such a belief.Coburn: I would want you to always act on the basis of the belief of what our Declaration of Independence says.
Kagan: I think you should want me to act on the basis of law. And that is what I have upheld to do, if I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed, is to act on the basis of law, which is the Constitution and the statutes of the United States.
10:42 PM in Second Amendment Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
In Chicago criminals can bear arms as well as dead people can vote.
IN McDONALD v. CHICAGO THE SUPREME COURT REAFFIRMED THAT HANDGUN OWNERSHIP IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.
Chicago’s angry response to McDonald is an ordinance requiring that all handguns be registered and imposing a $115.00 tax and fee scheme on every admitted handgun owner. This raises the question of whether a city can ban handguns by prohibitorally taxing the exercise of the constitutional right (to own a handgun). That is what a poll tax is.
07:27 PM in Second Amendment Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
06:59 PM in Second Amendment Activism, Second Amendment Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
"I call it a runaway train. This country is heading for a cliff, and I think we can put on the brakes with enough citizen activism," she said.
08:59 AM in Second Amendment Activism, Second Amendment Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
McDonald v. Chicago (excerpts from Alito opinion)
05:33 PM in Second Amendment Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
MORNING IN AMERICA!!! Click "PDF" Icon below for Supreme Court's decision in McDonald v. Chicago extending Second Amendment to all Americans!!!
This just in: The Supreme Court has just held, 5-4: THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS INCORPORATED AGAINST THE STATES UNDER THE 14th AMENDMENT! Thomas says under "Privileges or Immunities" clause, other justices say under Due Process clause. Decision is located here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf (The Heller decision two years ago held the Second Amendment guaranteed a fundamental individual right of self-defense, but until now this applied only against the federal government.) More analysis to follow later here at http://sacredhonor.us
This morning, beginning at 10 a.m. Eastern, the Court will issue orders from last Thursday’s conference and then the final opinions of the Term. We will relay both in the Live Blog below, with the assistance of our reporter at the Court, Lyle Denniston.
05:24 AM in Second Amendment Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
The Chief Justice has announced term will be closed on Monday, so McDonald v. Chicago will be released on Monday, which happens to also be my birthday and Ukrainian Constitution Day. Lots to celebrate around our house, I think, although if the Supreme Court starts buying up shotguns the way the IRS and Department of Education have been buying up shotguns, that may be an indication things will not go as we expect.
Visit http://www.scotusblog.com/ at 10am, Monday, June 28, for live coverage.
07:52 AM in Second Amendment Scholarship, Ukraine | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Likely to be released Monday as only four remaining cases for this term: http://www.scotusblog.com/
07:36 AM in Second Amendment Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Using a gun as NO can save your life. Use it as YES, or forcible mandate, and you do so at your peril (live by the sword, die by the sword).
Constitution of No - Jim DeMint - National Review Online.
The Constitution is full of no’s. It is by telling the government what it cannot do that the Constitution protects our freedoms. The Founders loathed tyranny and sought to erect a government ruled by law, not people.
Please vote for me, David R. Duringer, for Republican Central Committee, 71st District, Orange County (Ladera Ranch, Coto de Caza, Rancho Santa Margarita, most of Mission Viejo, other nearby hamlets).
I am a constitutional conservative. (Check right column for archives of my blog posts.) You can vote for up to six, and I'd like to be one of them!
I've even done several hundred contested matters (if you count UD's). How can this nominee be of any use in protecting the rule of law?
Of Arms and the Law: Banging head against wall.
From Elena Kagan's questionaire: "d. List, by case name, all cases in courts of record, including cases before administrative law judges, you tried to verdict, judgment, or final decision (rather than settled),.... i. What percentage of these trials were: 1. jury; 2. non-jury. I have never tried a case to verdict or judgment." This is a person who has been a tenured law prof for decades, head of Harvard Law School, and now is up for the US Supreme Court. NEVER TRIED A CASE!!!! Not once. Not small claims, not a DUI, nothing.
06:44 AM in Second Amendment Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
I spoke briefly this evening at the Casta del Sol Republican Club (quite a group!). My delivery might have been better if i'd had more than three hours of sleep and less than three pots of coffee, but i did my best. Here is text of the short speech:
GUNS ARE GOOD. Self-defense is the other side of the Right to Life coin. There can be no prosperity, without the rule of law it guarantees.
As A gun trust attorney, and concealed firearms instructor, I help families protect life, fortune, sacred honor. As an Econ major I like efficiency, but efficiency will not get us out of this mess. We need to change who we are, and become Americans again.
The Supreme Court recently acknowledged: ‘..'a well-regulated militia’ .. cannot exist unless the people are trained to bearing arms." Jefferson wrote we have a “DUTY to be AT ALL TIMES armed.." Ben Franklin warned we only have a republic if we can keep it. We now have the government we deserve. Does Washington listen? How do you say “no” to Washington? How do you form a state militia without a people trained to bearing arms? The Second Amendment is meaningless unless we live it every day.
Concealed carry has tactical value. But while an INDIVIDUAL may be safer when criminals don’t know who is armed, there is a better way to warn criminals and tyrants. SOCIETY is SAFEST when NEIGHBORS know who is properly armed, and who FAILS “to be at all times armed.” Only open carry provides accountability, and educates the next generation of patriots. THE HOLSTER IS A GREAT TEACHER. A nation that does not respect and protect concealed babies will not respect and protect concealed firearms. Out of sight, is out of mind. Concealed carry is Concealed Speech. Open carry is Ultrasound for the Second Amendment. Open carry is the surest path to a people trained to bearing arms.
Things will not change unless WE change. We must embrace AMERICAN culture, unique in all the world, in all HISTORY. If we don’t, our children will lose their birthright, and the world will lose hope.
While we press for more open carry, we must expand Concealed Carry, and deliver a fight-stopping, center-of-mass hit against socialism in Orange County by Electing Bill Hunt as Sheriff!
Then hold that trigger to the rear, release it just enough to reset the action, and put me on Central Committee. My name is last on the June 8 ballot: Duringer—like the pocket pistol—David R. Duringer, Gun Trust Attorney. Sign up for my FREE concealed carry class at WORLDEXAMINER.COM ~ Thank you
12:01 AM in Bigotry, BLUE helicopter thinking, California, Concealed Carry, Corporate Fascismo, Crime Statistics, Dignity of Women, F.A.R.T. (First Amendment Repression Tactic), Genocide & Disarmament, Gun Control = Racism, Gun Safety, Gun-Free Zone Shootings, Hit or Misc., Legislation, Lenin's Opiate, Leviathan, Mass Confiscation of Firearms in US, Notable Defensive Gun Uses, Open Carry, Physician, Heal Thyself, READY.GOD, Right to Life, Second Amendment Activism, Second Amendment Scholarship, Survival Measures, The Criminal Left, Treason, United World Organization | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
DAVID R. DURINGER Gun Trust Attorney Qualified Date:3/8/2010 1:00:00 PM Candidate Statement Issued: Candidate Statement Filed: Sigs In Lieu Issued: Sigs In Lieu Filed: Filing Fee Paid: Nomination Papers Issued:2/16/2010 Nomination Papers Filed:2/22/2010 Declaration of Candidacy Issued:2/16/2010 Declaration of Candidacy Filed:2/22/2010 User Code:
Complete List:
Central Committee, 71st District REP
Vote For: 6
Number of Candidates: 14
Number Qualified: 13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JACK J. ANDERSON
Orange County Assistant Sheriff
Qualified Date:3/5/2010 7:12:00 PM
Candidate Statement Issued:
Candidate Statement Filed:
Sigs In Lieu Issued:
Sigs In Lieu Filed:
Filing Fee Paid:
Nomination Papers Issued:2/17/2010
Nomination Papers Filed:3/2/2010
Declaration of Candidacy Issued:2/17/2010
Declaration of Candidacy Filed:3/2/2010
User Code:
LINDA K. BARNES
Retired Teacher
Qualified Date:3/11/2010 6:47:00 PM
Candidate Statement Issued:
Candidate Statement Filed:
Sigs In Lieu Issued:
Sigs In Lieu Filed:
Filing Fee Paid:
Nomination Papers Issued:2/25/2010
Nomination Papers Filed:3/11/2010
Declaration of Candidacy Issued:2/25/2010
Declaration of Candidacy Filed:3/11/2010
User Code:
TONY BEALL
Incumbent
Qualified Date:3/5/2010 7:11:00 PM
Candidate Statement Issued:
Candidate Statement Filed:
Sigs In Lieu Issued:
Sigs In Lieu Filed:
Filing Fee Paid:
Nomination Papers Issued:2/19/2010
Nomination Papers Filed:3/3/2010
Declaration of Candidacy Issued:2/19/2010
Declaration of Candidacy Filed:3/3/2010
User Code:
MARK WILLIAM BUCHER
Incumbent
Qualified Date:3/11/2010 7:22:00 PM
Candidate Statement Issued:
Candidate Statement Filed:
Sigs In Lieu Issued:
Sigs In Lieu Filed:
Filing Fee Paid:
Nomination Papers Issued:2/19/2010
Nomination Papers Filed:3/10/2010
Declaration of Candidacy Issued:2/19/2010
Declaration of Candidacy Filed:3/10/2010
User Code:
MARK DOBRILOVIC
Businessman/Financial Advisor
Qualified Date:3/5/2010 6:50:00 PM
Candidate Statement Issued:
Candidate Statement Filed:
Sigs In Lieu Issued:
Sigs In Lieu Filed:
Filing Fee Paid:
Nomination Papers Issued:2/18/2010
Nomination Papers Filed:2/24/2010
Declaration of Candidacy Issued:2/18/2010
Declaration of Candidacy Filed:2/24/2010
User Code:
JON DUMITRU
Councilmember, City of Orange
Qualified Date:
Candidate Statement Issued:
Candidate Statement Filed:
Sigs In Lieu Issued:
Sigs In Lieu Filed:
Filing Fee Paid:
Nomination Papers Issued:3/9/2010
Nomination Papers Filed:
Declaration of Candidacy Issued:3/9/2010
Declaration of Candidacy Filed:
User Code: DNR
DAVID R. DURINGER
Gun Trust Attorney
Qualified Date:3/8/2010 1:00:00 PM
Candidate Statement Issued:
Candidate Statement Filed:
Sigs In Lieu Issued:
Sigs In Lieu Filed:
Filing Fee Paid:
Nomination Papers Issued:2/16/2010
Nomination Papers Filed:2/22/2010
Declaration of Candidacy Issued:2/16/2010
Declaration of Candidacy Filed:2/22/2010
User Code:
JON FLEISCHMAN
Small Business Owner
Qualified Date:3/11/2010 7:27:00 PM
Candidate Statement Issued:
Candidate Statement Filed:
Sigs In Lieu Issued:
Sigs In Lieu Filed:
Filing Fee Paid:
Nomination Papers Issued:2/17/2010
Nomination Papers Filed:3/10/2010
Declaration of Candidacy Issued:2/17/2010
Declaration of Candidacy Filed:3/10/2010
User Code:
MARCIA GILCHRIST
Incumbent
Qualified Date:3/5/2010 7:09:00 PM
Candidate Statement Issued:
Candidate Statement Filed:
Sigs In Lieu Issued:
Sigs In Lieu Filed:
Filing Fee Paid:
Nomination Papers Issued:2/17/2010
Nomination Papers Filed:3/4/2010
Declaration of Candidacy Issued:2/17/2010
Declaration of Candidacy Filed:3/4/2010
User Code:
JESSE PETRILLA
United States Army Reservist
Qualified Date:3/9/2010 12:38:00 PM
Candidate Statement Issued:
Candidate Statement Filed:
Sigs In Lieu Issued:
Sigs In Lieu Filed:
Filing Fee Paid:
Nomination Papers Issued:3/5/2010
Nomination Papers Filed:3/8/2010
Declaration of Candidacy Issued:3/5/2010
Declaration of Candidacy Filed:3/8/2010
User Code:
EDWARD "ED" SACHS
Business Consultant
Qualified Date:3/8/2010 10:54:00 AM
Candidate Statement Issued:
Candidate Statement Filed:
Sigs In Lieu Issued:
Sigs In Lieu Filed:
Filing Fee Paid:
Nomination Papers Issued:2/17/2010
Nomination Papers Filed:3/5/2010
Declaration of Candidacy Issued:2/17/2010
Declaration of Candidacy Filed:3/5/2010
User Code:
TODD SPITZER
Assistant District Attorney
Qualified Date:3/4/2010 2:00:00 PM
Candidate Statement Issued:
Candidate Statement Filed:
Sigs In Lieu Issued:
Sigs In Lieu Filed:
Filing Fee Paid:
Nomination Papers Issued:2/16/2010
Nomination Papers Filed:3/1/2010
Declaration of Candidacy Issued:2/16/2010
Declaration of Candidacy Filed:3/1/2010
User Code:
COLLEEN CONNELL TRUJILLO
Real Estate Broker
Qualified Date:3/13/2010 4:11:00 PM
Candidate Statement Issued:
Candidate Statement Filed:
Sigs In Lieu Issued:
Sigs In Lieu Filed:
Filing Fee Paid:
Nomination Papers Issued:2/16/2010
Nomination Papers Filed:3/12/2010
Declaration of Candidacy Issued:2/16/2010
Declaration of Candidacy Filed:3/12/2010
User Code:
JOHN S. WILLIAMS
Public Administrator Of Orange County
Qualified Date:3/9/2010 12:54:00 PM
Candidate Statement Issued:
Candidate Statement Filed:
Sigs In Lieu Issued:
Sigs In Lieu Filed:
Filing Fee Paid:
Nomination Papers Issued:2/16/2010
Nomination Papers Filed:3/8/2010
Declaration of Candidacy Issued:2/16/2010
Declaration of Candidacy Filed:3/8/2010
User Code:
10:48 AM in California, Concealed Carry, Dignity of Women, F.A.R.T. (First Amendment Repression Tactic), Gun Safety, Legislation, Mass Confiscation of Firearms in US, Notable Defensive Gun Uses, Open Carry, READY.GOD, Right to Life, Second Amendment Activism, Second Amendment Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
1. A number of the justices recognize that Slaughter-House Cases (1873) was wrongly decided, but are reluctant to overturn all the existing precedents that are derived from that. 2. Even those justices who don't like the Heller decision don't want to rock the boat on due process incorporation, preferring to come up with a narrower definition of the right for the states.
11:22 AM in Right to Life, Second Amendment Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
I honestly hope Scalia was kidding about not protecting concealed carry. It’s the only form of 2nd Amendment exercise that’s relevant in day to day life for the vast majority of Americans. To take that away from the 2nd Amendment is to render it meaningless as a practical and meaningful right. A right is not a right if it’s only allowed as a weekend hobby and/or only fully enjoyable by agorophobes.
10:37 AM in California, Concealed Carry, Second Amendment Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Nicely put!
McDonald v. Chicago Oral Arguments heard by Supreme Court Today - NFA Gun Trust Lawyer Blog.
Some are calling McDonald v. Chicago - Heller for the rest of us.
08:50 AM in Second Amendment Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
06:45 AM in Second Amendment Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
I declared candidacy Monday. Now I've hit the fuel jettison button, firing booster rockets. Hopefully, every good conservative in OC will see the flare, act immediately to fan my facebook political page and **IMPORTANT** invite others to do the same:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/David-R-Duringer-for-OC-71st-District-Republican-Central-Committee/325049951710?ref=ts
Let's do our part to restore the political environment of ordered liberty, first inscribed by the Author of Liberty upon the hearts of patriots then writ large within our Constitution, the loss of which should be to our everlasting shame. Elect CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATIVES to grassroots positions.
Stay safe,
David R. Duringer
11:31 AM in California, Concealed Carry, Dignity of Women, F.A.R.T. (First Amendment Repression Tactic), Genocide & Disarmament, Gun Control = Racism, Gun Safety, Gun-Free Zone Shootings, Hit or Misc., Legislation, Lenin's Opiate, Leviathan, Mass Confiscation of Firearms in US, Notable Defensive Gun Uses, Open Carry, Physician, Heal Thyself, READY.GOD, Right to Laugh, Right to Leave, Right to Life, Second Amendment Activism, Second Amendment Scholarship, Survival Measures, Travel, Treason, Ukraine, United World Organization, Where to Carry | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521) Appealed from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (June 2, 2009) Oral argument: March 2, 2010 SECOND AMENDMENT, SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE The 2008 Supreme Court case Heller v. District of Columbia ruled that Washington D.C. gun control laws that effectively banned the possession of handguns violated an individual’s Second Amendment right to self-defense. Petitioners, Otis McDonald, et al. (“McDonald”), challenge the constitutionality of Respondent’s, City of Chicago’s (“Chicago”), gun control laws, arguing that they are similar to Heller’s. After Heller, the federal government cannot prohibit the possession of handguns in the home. This case raises the question of whether the same restriction applies to state governments. McDonald argues that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right that states should not be able to infringe. Chicago argues that states should be able to tailor firearm regulation to local conditions. The outcome of this case will affect the ability of states to regulate the possession of handguns in their jurisdictions and could have far-reaching effects on long-held conceptions of federalism.
06:07 PM in Second Amendment Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
rules that the 14th Amendment due process clause incorporates the right to arms and makes it binding on the States
06:02 PM in Second Amendment Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
08:01 AM in Bigotry, BLUE helicopter thinking, Books, California, Concealed Carry, Corporate Fascismo, Crime Statistics, Dignity of Women, F.A.R.T. (First Amendment Repression Tactic), Genocide & Disarmament, Gun Control = Racism, Gun Safety, Gun-Free Zone Shootings, Hit or Misc., Legislation, Lenin's Opiate, Leviathan, Mass Confiscation of Firearms in US, Notable Defensive Gun Uses, Open Carry, Physician, Heal Thyself, READY.GOD, Right to Laugh, Right to Leave, Right to Life, Second Amendment Activism, Second Amendment Scholarship, Survival Measures, The Criminal Left, Travel, Treason, Ukraine, United World Organization, Where to Carry | Permalink
Here's an OCR'd version (there may be typos) of my 1974 Chicago-Kent Law Review article on the Second Amendment. So far as I can see, it's the only online text of David T. Hardy, Of Arms and the Law, 51 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 62 (1974). By modern standards, it's quite limited. But it was a start. How it got started is rather funny, viewed from the standpoint of 2010. I wrote the article, over a period of months, on
08:59 PM in Second Amendment Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
NRA-ILA :: U.S. Supreme Court Grants NRA Motion For Divided Argument In McDonald v. City of Chicago.
| Friday, January 29, 2010 |
|
On Monday, January 25, the U.S. Supreme Court granted NRA’s motion to allow it to participate in the upcoming oral argument in McDonald v. City of Chicago. “We are pleased with the Court’s decision to grant our motion,” said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. “NRA’s solitary goal in McDonald is to ensure that our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms applies to every law-abiding American in every state. We are hopeful that the Court will share our view that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment clearly intended to apply the Second Amendment to the states.” Last September, the Court agreed to consider the McDonald case, on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. That court incorrectly claimed that prior Supreme Court precedent prevented it from holding in favor of incorporation of the Second Amendment. NRA believes the Seventh Circuit should have followed the lead of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Nordyke v. King, which found that Supreme Court precedent does not prevent the Second Amendment from applying to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. As a party in McDonald, NRA looks forward to participating in the upcoming oral argument. Former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement will be representing NRA at oral argument, which will occur on March 2. The NRA chose Solicitor General Clement for oral argument in this case because he is one of the leading Supreme Court advocates of our time and has argued dozens of cases before the Court. In the case at hand, he has already represented 251 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and 58 U.S. Senators in filing an historic and very important friend of the court brief, which makes a strong and effective case in favor of incorporation. Now that he is representing the NRA, he will just as strongly represent the interests of NRA members and all other Americans who believe the Second Amendment should apply equally throughout our nation. (A link to the congressional brief can be found here: http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/litigation/mcdonald_ac_congress..pdf) During oral argument, Solicitor General Clement will ensure that the Court hears all the arguments for applying the Second Amendment to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court could reach that result either through the Privileges or Immunities Clause (as the plaintiffs in the case have emphasized), or through the Due Process Clause (as the Supreme Court has chosen to apply nearly all of the other provisions of the Bill of Rights). The NRA’s solitary goal in this case is to ensure that the Supreme Court applies the Second Amendment to all Americans throughout the country, no matter which method the Court chooses to use. As a party to the case, NRA also had the opportunity to file a reply brief to Chicago’s arguments. That effort was led by Stephen Poss and Kevin Martin of the firm Goodwin Procter, along with Stephen Halbrook and Solicitor General Clement. A link to the NRA’s reply brief, which was filed today, can be found here. |
06:52 PM in Second Amendment Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Today, 34 California District Attorneys and 8 Nevada District Attorneys joined a consortium of other “friends of the court” to file an “amicus” brief in the United States Supreme Court in the cases of McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521) and NRA v. Chicago (08-1497). Both cases ask the Supreme Court to hold that the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution stops state and local governments from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms, just as the Supreme Court has already held that the Second Amendment stops the federal government from infringing on that right. The brief is posted at www.calgunlaws.com.
08:23 PM in Second Amendment Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Logic, legal precedent, American history, and criminological evidence over the last several decades supporting the successful re-emergence of Right to Carry, all impel the Supreme Court to incorporate the Second Amendment against the States this year.
"The alternative to a standing army is ‘a well-regulated militia,’ but this cannot exist
unless the people are trained to bearing arms."--DC v. Heller, decided 6/26/08 (US Supreme Ct. quoting Cooley)08:39 AM in California, Second Amendment Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Supreme Court announced today that it will hear the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, and decide whether the right to keep and bear arms secured by the Second Amendment protects Americans from overreaching state and local governments.
01:13 PM in Second Amendment Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
KOZINSKI
, Chief Judge:
Submission is vacated pending the Supreme Court’s disposition of Maloney
v. Rice, No. 08-1592, McDonald v. City of Chicago, No. 08-1521, and National
Rifle Ass’n of Am., Inc. v. City of Chicago, No. 08-1497.
09:04 PM in Second Amendment Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
11:11 AM in Second Amendment Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Sunstein: Obama, not courts, should interpret law.
"There is no reason to believe that in the face of statutory ambiguity, the meaning of federal law should be settled by the inclinations and predispositions of federal judges. The outcome should instead depend on the commitments and beliefs of the President and those who operate under him," argued Sunstein. This statement was the central thesis of Sunstein's 2006 Yale Law School paper, "Beyond Marbury: The Executive's Power to Say What the Law Is."
12:47 PM in Second Amendment Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Nordyke's oral argument will be the morning of September 24 at 10AM. Sykes oral argument is at 2PM in Sacramento on the 24th.
12:32 AM in Second Amendment Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
One wonders if she has actually read Heller, Emerson, or Nordyke.
Sotomayor Ducks Questions About Gun Rights - Political Hotsheet - CBS News.
President Obama's first nominee to the high court did say that she believed Americans do not currently enjoy a fundamental right to bear arms, which echoes her two previous rulings on the topic as an appeals court judge.
07:31 AM in Second Amendment Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Fairfax, Va. – Two-thirds of the nation’s attorneys general have filed an amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari in the case of NRA v. Chicago and hold that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This bi-partisan group of 33 attorneys general, along with the Attorney General of California in a separate filing, agrees with the NRA’s position that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms in the home for self-defense, disagreeing with the decision recently issued by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
“The historical record clearly shows that the Second Amendment was intended to apply to every American in every state in the country,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. “As the Supreme Court said clearly in last year’s landmark Heller decision, the Second Amendment protects an individual right that ‘belongs to all Americans’. Two-thirds of America’s state Attorneys General agree.”
The Seventh Circuit claimed precedent bound it from holding in favor of incorporation of the Second Amendment. However, it should have followed the lead of the recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Nordyke v. King, which found that those cases don't prevent the Second Amendment from applying to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The Seventh Circuit opinion upholds current bans on the possession of handguns in Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois.
California attorney general Edmund G. Brown Jr. is filing a separate brief arguing that the Supreme Court should take up NRA’s appeal and hold that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the States.
“It is fundamentally wrong to violate the civil rights of any law-abiding person based on their zip code,” Cox concluded. “The fundamental right of self-defense must be respected by every jurisdiction throughout our country.”
State Attorneys General Amicus Brief
California Attorney General Amicus Brief
12:36 AM in Second Amendment Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
The Volokh Conspiracy - Not Dictum:.
much scholarly (and some judicial) ink has been spilled on the theoretical question of how dictum should be defined. Instead, I just wanted to repeat something I said earlier (in the Emerson context): If Nordyke v. King is dictum, then some extremely important Supreme Court rulings are dictum, even though they have to my knowledge never been treated as such. Here are three:
10:52 AM in Second Amendment Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)
Court rules for white firefighters over promotions.
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.
08:02 AM in Second Amendment Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)
GOP to press Sotomayor on gun rights - Los Angeles Times.
Gun control and the 2nd Amendment are lightning-rod issues that Democrats would just as soon avoid. Seizing on that, Republicans during this session of Congress have brought up gun rights whenever possible. The GOP criticism of Sotomayor centers on the three-judge ruling that upheld New York's law forbidding the use or possession of a popular gang weapon known as a nunchaku, saying, "It is settled law . . . that the 2nd Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right," they said, citing an 1886 Supreme Court ruling.
06:33 AM in Second Amendment Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thank you!
