![Cases That should Not have been Filed (Gun Rights) (Viewpoint Essay)](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![Cases That should Not have been Filed (Gun Rights) (Viewpoint Essay)](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
Cases That should Not have been Filed (Gun Rights) (Viewpoint Essay)
Shotgun News 2010, Feb 1, 64, 4
-
- $5.99
-
- $5.99
Publisher Description
When I first started researching the history of how the courts have dealt with the Second Amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms provisions contained in most of the state constitutions, I found myself wondering how most of the gun control laws then on the books had survived court challenge. Was the meaning of the right to keep and bear arms really this hard for the courts to understand? As I started reading through many of these decisions, I figured out why so many gun control laws had managed to stay on the books, and it was something of a surprise. It turns out that there are at least two categories of people that have historically run afoul of gun control laws: good people in the wrong place at the wrong time with a gun; and bad people who tried to use the fight to bear arms as a defense for criminal behavior. Often, the lawyer makes every conceivable argument to get his client's conviction overturned, no matter how minor or absurd. If you throw enough stuff at the wall, some of it may stick.