Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Study Finds New Gun Facts
gunlawupdates@gunlaws.com | 17 August, 2003 | Alan Korwin

Posted on 08/17/2003 8:29:26 PM PDT by marktwain

Phoenix, Ariz. The results of a six-year study of Supreme Court gun cases will be released in September and has uncovered scores of forgotten decisions that affect the highly contested Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Co-written by an attorney who has won three cases before the High Court, along with the research director of a prominent think tank, and a nationally recognized gun-law expert, the researchers conclude from the evidence that the Supreme Court has recognized an individual right to arms for most of the past two centuries.

Among the key findings in "Supreme Court Gun Cases," being released next month by Phoenix-based Bloomfield Press:

- The Court has not been quiet on this subject as previously thought, using some form of the word "gun" in its decisions 2,910 times (gun, rifle, pistol, shotgun, firearm, etc., even Winchester five times) in 92 cases. Three dozen of the cases quote or mention the Second Amendment directly.

- Armed self defense with personally owned firearms is recognized and supported in more than a dozen cases, is a distinct right of American citizens, and an ancient "duty to retreat" is not obligatory.

- The often-cited Miller case from 1939 is inconclusive, which is why gun-rights and gun-control advocates both claim it supports their position. The record shows that the Court actually remanded this case back to the lower court for retrial and a hearing on the evidence, since there was no evidence presented. Because Miller had been murdered by that time and his co-defendant had taken a plea agreement, no retrial or evidentiary hearing was ever held.

- All 92 cases are reproduced to show what the Court has actually said. More than 1,000 interesting quotations are highlighted, and each case includes a plain-English description. A special "descriptive index" reduces each case to the firearms-related question(s) it answers.

Advanced review copies of "Supreme Court Gun Cases" are available to the news media on request. Contact Bloomfield Press at 1-800-707-4020 or SCGC@gunlaws.com.

---------------------

Note: Bloomfield Press publishes "Gun Laws of America," the unabridged guide to federal gun law, and is the largest publisher of gun-law books in the country, founded in 1988. Copies of "Supreme Court Gun Cases" for media review are free on request, call 1-800-707-4020. The authors (Attorney David Kopel, Attorney Stephen Halbrook, Alan Korwin) are available for interview, call us, or email interview@gunlaws.com. Download high-resolution mini-cover art and more info from our website, click Media Services.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; bang; banglist; firearm; gun; korwin; supremecourt
This is a brand new book, hot off the presses. Looks like lots of good information here the the OldDominantLiberalMedia didn't want us to know!
1 posted on 08/17/2003 8:29:26 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain
This book can be ordered right here right now.
2 posted on 08/17/2003 8:37:15 PM PDT by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain; SUSSA
MT, thank you for posting this. I always admire anyone who hits the books and does basic research with new results, from material that others had ovrlooked for decades if not centuries.

John, I assume you're aware of this book, and want to ride it into the Supreme Court like John Wayne chasing the bad guy into a saloon on horseback.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Texans for Sale or Rent" posted on FR, other publication to come.

3 posted on 08/17/2003 8:39:58 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob ("Don't just stand there. Run for Congress." www.ArmorforCongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee; Squantos; harpseal
2nd Amendment Ping
4 posted on 08/17/2003 8:42:08 PM PDT by ConservativeLawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
This is very good news. Too bad the media won't report it.
5 posted on 08/17/2003 8:43:36 PM PDT by guitar Josh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: guitar Josh
This is very good news. Too bad the media won't report it.

I'm sure the NYTimes will...they will just leave out all the cases which don't agree with their position.

Gum

6 posted on 08/17/2003 8:46:29 PM PDT by ChewedGum ( http://king-of-fools.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ChewedGum
I'm sure the NYTimes will...they will just leave out all the cases which don't agree with their position.

You're right, my mistake.

7 posted on 08/17/2003 8:48:04 PM PDT by guitar Josh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte
Just Ordered Thanks for the Link!!!
8 posted on 08/17/2003 8:53:31 PM PDT by therut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BartMan1
ping
9 posted on 08/17/2003 9:18:35 PM PDT by IncPen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: IncPen
Bump!!!
10 posted on 08/18/2003 4:58:12 AM PDT by MonroeDNA (No longshoremen were injured to produce this tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
Ping.
11 posted on 08/18/2003 5:11:21 AM PDT by FreedomPoster (this space intentionally blank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
bump
12 posted on 08/18/2003 5:14:33 AM PDT by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *bang_list; AAABEST; wku man; SLB; Travis McGee; Squantos; harpseal; Shooter 2.5; ...
Interesting. Ultimately, though, we are forced to ask the question, "What good does this do us?". Hopefully, this bodes well for cases like Silveira vs. Lockyer, which, if granted cert, would determine if the RKBA as defined in the 2A is indeed an "individual right".

Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!

13 posted on 08/18/2003 5:27:24 AM PDT by Joe Brower ("Inter arma, enim silent leges." (In time of war, the laws fall silent.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeLawyer
Good to hear about this book I shall have to get a copy.
14 posted on 08/18/2003 5:49:11 AM PDT by harpseal (Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
"....Ultimately, though, we are forced to ask the question, "What good does this do us?"

The very FIRST thing I learned in Law School...AFTER: "You teach yourself the LAW, we teach you how to think like a LAWYER"...was something about how the US Supreme Court is the only institution on the planet which visibly demonstrates that change is bad. Showing these cases in a brief to the court is going to be a persuasive element as a reminder of earlier binding precedent. I begin to be cheered just a wee bit more...at least the outlook isn't quite as gloomy as before.

15 posted on 08/18/2003 6:29:05 AM PDT by ExSoldier (M1911A1: The ORIGINAL "Point and Click" interface!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ChewedGum
I'm sure the NYTimes will...they will just leave out all the cases which don't agree with their position.

That should make for a VERY brief review of the book...

BTW, even the Wisconsin Supremes have found that the right to self-defense exists in the State (partially due to the hard work of the NRA and its people in Wisconsin.)

As a result of the decision, issued a couple of weeks ago, Wisconsin NOW has a 'right-to-carry-concealed' WITHOUT A PERMIT situation.

Thousands of innocent children have been butchered by wild-eyed gun-carrying white Christian family men...

16 posted on 08/18/2003 6:53:37 AM PDT by ninenot (Democrats make mistakes. RINOs don't correct them.--Chesterton (adapted by Ninenot))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
bttt!
17 posted on 08/18/2003 7:19:55 AM PDT by glock rocks (I thought we had dust bunnies... bunnies? ... naw, those are full grown llamas...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Someone should get this book appended to either Gorski's or another pro-2A brief, so that (at least) the clerks will HAVE to read it. Having a copy sent to each of the Justices wouldn't be such a bad idea, either.
18 posted on 08/18/2003 7:43:43 AM PDT by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #19 Removed by Moderator

To: *bang_list; jdege
Bumpity bump bump bump.
20 posted on 08/18/2003 7:50:12 AM PDT by Johnny Gage (We will not tire, We will not falter, We will not fail. - George W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Johnny Gage
BTTT
21 posted on 08/18/2003 8:48:02 AM PDT by Double Tap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
BBTTT
22 posted on 08/18/2003 9:00:32 AM PDT by hattend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
ping
23 posted on 08/18/2003 9:16:25 AM PDT by NRA2BFree (IF WE DON*T STOP OUR GOVT AND THE UN , OUR GRAND CHILDREN AND BEYOND, WILL NEVER KNOW FREEDOM!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
This is indeed good news!
24 posted on 08/18/2003 9:18:12 AM PDT by NRA2BFree (IF WE DON*T STOP OUR GOVT AND THE UN , OUR GRAND CHILDREN AND BEYOND, WILL NEVER KNOW FREEDOM!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
BTW, even the Wisconsin Supremes have found that the right to self-defense exists in the State (partially due to the hard work of the NRA and its people in Wisconsin.)

As a result of the decision, issued a couple of weeks ago, Wisconsin NOW has a 'right-to-carry-concealed' WITHOUT A PERMIT situation.

No, that's not true. Only in very limited cirumstances, like in one's own home or business. It was a narrow ruling that moslty held intact the law prohibiting concealed weapons.

25 posted on 08/18/2003 9:19:55 AM PDT by gtech (Don't sell me out and expect my vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
for us Average Joes, it will provide ammunition for the ongoing grassroots debate. That's a good thing.
26 posted on 08/18/2003 9:36:20 AM PDT by King Prout (people hear and do not listen, see and do not observe, speak without thought, post and not edit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: gtech
I, too, read the decision.

You are correct: the WISupremes said that 'home/business' were the appropriate places.

BUT the nose of the camel is in the phrase: "feel threatened."

Technically, "feeling threatened" can happen in a lot more places than home/business. There may never be a test case, but it's not hard to imagine the circumstances which would create one...
27 posted on 08/18/2003 9:51:35 AM PDT by ninenot (Democrats make mistakes. RINOs don't correct them.--Chesterton (adapted by Ninenot))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: gtech
..and by the way, what about BETWEEN 'home/business?'

Apparently there will be a CCW bill introduced in September, and it should pass, get vetoed by our Governing Nazi slimebucket, and he will be over-ridden.
28 posted on 08/18/2003 9:53:21 AM PDT by ninenot (Democrats make mistakes. RINOs don't correct them.--Chesterton (adapted by Ninenot))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
Thousands of innocent children have been butchered by wild-eyed gun-carrying white Christian family men...

I'm sorry, I thought you just said Thousands of innocent children have been butchered by wild-eyed gun carrying white Christian family men.... Could you repeat that because I'm sure I didn't hear you correctly.

Hat-Trick.

29 posted on 08/18/2003 10:02:56 AM PDT by Hat-Trick (Only a month away from NHL training camps!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Coop
hey, loook at this.
30 posted on 08/18/2003 12:22:23 PM PDT by patton (I wish we could all look at the evil of abortion with the pure, honest heart of a child.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: patton
bttt
31 posted on 08/18/2003 3:11:23 PM PDT by Badray (Molon Labe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Hat-Trick
That's the purpose of the </sarcasm tag. To help you hear the post correctly. The comment was referencing the WI Supreme Court's decision that CCW was, in fact, legitimate under certain circumstances.

You probably did not notice the news reports from Wisconsin in which "thousands.....etc." That's because THERE WERE NOT ANY SUCH REPORTS, a disappointment to the Brady Campaign.
32 posted on 08/18/2003 3:20:40 PM PDT by ninenot (Democrats make mistakes. RINOs don't correct them.--Chesterton (adapted by Ninenot))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower

Found it yesterday.

33 posted on 08/18/2003 4:13:36 PM PDT by PhilDragoo (Hitlery: das Butch von Buchenvald)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ExSoldier
They have reversed themselves from prior rulings before, but never from so many of them at once.

34 posted on 08/18/2003 4:45:11 PM PDT by William Terrell (People can exist without government but government can't exist without people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
"They have reversed themselves from prior rulings before"

Of course, but usually the "holding" is concentrated on the narrowest point of law imaginable....and thus the changes tend to be incremental over a period of time. This pattern changed during the liberalism of the Warren Court in the 1960's when the Civil Rights era was in full swing...and it culminated with the 1972 decision on Roe v Wade. Since that time, the USSC has tended to return to the old "narrow holding" view and thus, slow changes. The crux of the matter this time as you point out is that there is indeed a fair body of prior case law on "point" and it may find itself caught upon the horns of dilemma in that the precedent is over 100 years old...but still binding as are all decisions (those not specifically overturned by legislation or USSC actions) from the High Court.

This is the gray area...the minefield. IF the liberal viewpoint holds sway that the Constitution is a living and therefore evolving document, the 2nd Amendment might be in jeopardy as we know it....OTOH, the strict constructionists will have the powerful voice of tradition in their corner and they will be urging care be taken not to disturb well established case law.

35 posted on 08/18/2003 7:55:51 PM PDT by ExSoldier (M1911A1: The ORIGINAL "Point and Click" interface!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
- The often-cited Miller case from 1939 is inconclusive, which is why gun-rights and gun-control advocates both claim it supports their position. The record shows that the Court actually remanded this case back to the lower court for retrial and a hearing on the evidence, since there was no evidence presented. Because Miller had been murdered by that time and his co-defendant had taken a plea agreement, no retrial or evidentiary hearing was ever held.

BINGO!

I've been explaining this to anti-gun folks for years now (and even to quite a few pro-gun people who had gotten an erroneous impression about the case).

It's nice to see that the author of this new book got it right. If he untangled this issue correctly, I'm confident that he's most likely giving the straight info on all the others, too.

36 posted on 08/18/2003 7:59:40 PM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ExSoldier
From what I've seen, they overturn a point in a single case, like Brown v Board is said to have overturned Plessy v Ferguson. But all these cases represent a pattern of rulings that form a judicial interpretation of the 2nd.

If they rule that the 2nd is not an acknowledgement of a personal right the bear arms, they overturn all those cases at one time. I think that if the majority are socialist leaning, they, and other socialists in other branches, will work to see that a case that would force them to rule on the constitutional question (Ashwander et al. v Tennesee Valley Authority et al., I think) would never get to them.

We may have already seen an example of that. Ashcroft just recently changed the governments "policy" to one of individual right, which kept (I forget the case, think it was an appeals court in Louisiana I think, restraining order violation) from being appealed.

37 posted on 08/18/2003 8:28:53 PM PDT by William Terrell (People can exist without government but government can't exist without people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

BTTT
38 posted on 08/18/2003 8:34:28 PM PDT by StriperSniper (Make South Korea an island)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
I believe that when "ultimately" comes, it will still be up to a split decision of the robes with agendas pinned to them. They will just need enough time to figure out how to explain themselves in legalese about their decisions, whether we like the outcome or not, in order to avoid the glare of their respective supporters.

"Ultimately" we need conservative judges in there ASAP!
39 posted on 08/18/2003 8:44:48 PM PDT by Blue Collar Christian (It's none of your business whether or not I need my guns and ammo.><>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
Didn't Plessy v Ferguson reverse the Ruling in Dredd Scott?
40 posted on 08/18/2003 8:49:48 PM PDT by ExSoldier (M1911A1: The ORIGINAL "Point and Click" interface!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ExSoldier
Didn't Plessy v Ferguson reverse the Ruling in Dredd Scott?

No, the postwar amendments did that.

41 posted on 08/19/2003 5:56:14 AM PDT by William Terrell (People can exist without government but government can't exist without people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
Sorry...I missed the Hat-Trick
42 posted on 08/19/2003 6:01:43 AM PDT by Hat-Trick (Only a month away from NHL training camps!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
"We may have already seen an example of that. Ashcroft just recently changed the governments "policy" to one of individual right, which kept (I forget the case, think it was an appeals court in Louisiana I think, restraining order violation) from being appealed."

That would be the "Emerson" case out of Texas, which was appealed to the 5th Circuit in New Orleans. The 5th Circuit ruled that the 2d Amendment was an individual right.
43 posted on 08/19/2003 6:13:09 AM PDT by ought-six
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ought-six
Yes. Well, the government was on the collective right side of the issue, and had promised to appeal any decision away from that position to the supremes, which would have nailed the issue at the Supreme Court level.

Ashcroft changed the position as an administration "policy" statement and avoided an appeal. If he would have appealed, the issue would have been settled, and most federal laws regulating firearms under Art 1, Sec 8 Cl 3, and many state laws, would have vanished. The "policy" change can be reversed at any time by this or any other administration, whereas a SC ruling would have taken a constitutional amendment repealing the 2nd.

44 posted on 08/19/2003 9:43:40 AM PDT by William Terrell (People can exist without government but government can't exist without people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Thanks for the post,,,

On my way to purchase a copy of this book,,, should be interesting

45 posted on 08/21/2003 11:58:09 AM PDT by TYVets ("An armed society is a polite society." - Robert A. Heinlien & me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson