Handguns - Latest Reports

Pistols
Revolvers
Specialty

Long Guns - Latest Reports

Rifles
Shotguns
Specialty

Special Purpose Guns - Latest Reports

Home Defense
Surplus/Collectible
Law Enforcement
Concealed Carry
Hunting
Recreational
Competitive

Ammo

Accessories

Gun News

Gun Rights
Industry Notes
New Products
Competitive
People

Special Reports

Replacing Missing Firing Pins

Don’t give up if a replacement firing pin is unavailable from your catalog suppliers. Instead, use these tips to solve the problem.

Working with Pins and Punches

One of the things some gun owners—engineers or fairly well-educated hobbyists who have a good grasp of mechanical things—ask about is how to handle the different kinds of pins in their guns. Particularly, they often want to know if their punches are the right ones, or if they can use a slightly different one without damaging their pins.

Commentary

Time to Put An End to Army Bases as Gun-Free Zones

“Shouldn't an army base be the last place where a terrorist should be able to shoot at people uninterrupted for 10 minutes? After all, an army base is filled with soldiers who carry guns, right? Unfortunately, that is not the case. Beginning in March 1993, under the Clinton administration, the army forbids military personnel from carrying their own personal firearms and mandates that 'a credible and specific threat against [Department of the Army] personnel [exist] in that region' before military personnel 'may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection.'

Nullification Redux: Resisting Federal Domination

From MonroeRising.com: Recently, a friend and I were lamenting the steady dissolution of our Constitution. It seemed to us that the further our politicians have strayed from the spirit, meaning and intent of the Constitution, the more enervated, disunited and dispirited our nation and its people have become. Discussing how best to remedy the nation’s decline and to restore Constitutional governance, we briefly alluded to the discredited doctrine of nullification about which neither of us knew very much at all. So, I decided to briefly revisit the subject to see what I could learn. In a nutshell, this is it. I hope it will be of some interest to you.


Exclusive community benefits are yours, free!

  • Full use of our gun comparison tool
  • Our weekly insider email
  • Comment on GunReports.com articles
Just enter your email address and it’s all yours, free:
Email Address

Gun Reports - News

Gun Reports Home >> News
Eugene Volokh

Eugene Volokh

North Carolina Supreme Court Says Some Felons Do Have a Right to Bear Arms

August 30, 2009

Printer Friendly | Email |

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh recently wrote on his blog, The Volokh Conspiracy, that the North Carolina Supreme Court has just held in Britt v. State that some felons -- whose crimes are long in the past -- do have a constitutional right to bear arms, at least under the North Carolina Constitution.

Volokh said, "The vote was 5-2, with four of the five Justices joining the majority opinion and the fifth concurring in the judgment without written opinion. Note that since this is an interpretation of the North Carolina Constitution, the decision is final, with no basis for further review by the U.S. Supreme Court."

Quotes from the decision:

Plaintiff, through his uncontested lifelong nonviolence towards other citizens, his thirty years of law-abiding conduct since his crime, his seventeen years of responsible, lawful firearm possession between 1987 and 2004, and his assiduous and proactive compliance with the 2004 amendment, has affirmatively demonstrated that he is not among the class of citizens who pose a threat to public peace and safety....

Based on the facts of plaintiff’s crime, his long post-conviction history of respect for the law, the absence of any evidence of violence by plaintiff, and the lack of any exception or possible relief from the statute’s operation, as applied to plaintiff, the 2004 version of N.C.G.S. § 14-451.1 [a complete ban on any possession of a firearm by a felon] is an unreasonable regulation, not fairly related to the preservation of public peace and safety. In particular, it is unreasonable to assert that a nonviolent citizen who has responsibly, safely, and legally owned and used firearms for seventeen years is in reality so dangerous that any possession at all of a firearm would pose a significant threat to public safety.

Click here to read Volokh's full discussion.

digg this reddit submit Newsvine DEL.ICIO.US









An Important Note for GunReports.Com Readers:

Our goal on this website is to foster a free expression of views while reining in language that crosses the line of civil discourse. Accordingly, the comments areas are intended to expand the knowledge of all users of this site. But site administrators wish to discourage the use of profanity, insults, disrespect, the advocacy of lawlessness, violence or sedition, or attempts to impinge on the rights of others.

While GunReports.Com encourages robust discourse that furthers our understanding of all the issues affecting gun owners, comments that break GunReports.Com’s rules will be removed. In addition, we reserve the right to edit or delete individual comments, and in extreme cases, to ban commenters at our discretion.

--Tim Cole
Publisher, GunReports.Com

Reader Comments

Eugene Volokh and his posters are extremely intelligent people, and I have a bit of trouble keeping up with them. As most people here know, I tend to be a fairly simplistic absolutist. When I was young, for example, the art of chessplaying had the unfortunate effect of bringing out my latent Visigoth, in which I grew impatient with the subtleties of the game, and began to march forth and lay waste to the boardscape, inevitably losing the game.

I guess that's why my career in politics never got off of the ground. I was defeated for class treasurer in the ninth grade.

Gaviota

Which other Constitutional right does a convicted felon lose for life?

If he's actually paid his debt to society," then just where is it in the Constitution that allows "The State" to deny a man any of his Constitutional rights?

COULD WE PLEASE GET BACK TO THE CONSTITUTION?

I guess the arguement could be that if you are too dangerous to own a gun you shouldn't be out of jail.


To post a comment you must be a registered user of gunreports.com and be logged in. Use one of the forms below to login or register for FREE to gunreports.com

Login to gunreports.com

E-mail Address:
Password:
Forgot your password?

Register and Post Comment
*Fields marked with an asterisk are required.

* First Name:
* Last Name:
* E-mail Address:
* Password:
* Retype Password:
* Blog Username:
* Comments:


E-mail me when new comments are posted in this thread?