Be sure you are signed up for JPFO's periodical Email Alerts.


Get a very aggressive defense of your rights.

Membership Page

Time to Relax?!

Go Try
'Chill-Out' Corner



Since the "New Look" change mid 2011 - we are still thirsty for feedback but sadly get very little. Can we ask for one or two regular visitors to volunteer to regularly report, mentioning any link or display problems, and Email us with info. Some errors can be hard to track down and so outside help is most useful.

"Gun of the week" has been running for some time - let’s hear from you. Like - not like? Any other suggestions?

Thank you - JPFO Webmaster.

Click on the above.
Help us avoid errors.

Should you prefer a full page of JPFO’s main links, then
Go Here.

JPFO Order Line
(800) 869-1884.

Alerts & "Bounces"
Points to note with the JPFO alert emails.

Alerts can sometimes bounce!

Note - (July 2011) We notice sometimes that out of the thousands of alerts sent out, there can be rather high numbers of "bounces" - on checking with our provider it would seem that now and again an ISP makes some change to their email settings and that can result in non-delivery to those using that ISP.

If it happens to be something like Hotmail, Yahoo or even gmail - then many can be affected temporarily. For those who miss out on one of our sendings, we apologize, but the provider does try to stay ahead of things when they can by making changes in their own settings to reflect ISP changes and so control the bounces, which we like to see as zero!

If in doubt, please check the alerts archive to make sure you have not missed anything. Also, if you get alerts do please open them!

Chris, Webmaster.

Why Join?
Why you should consider joining JPFO.

Why Join JPFO?

JPFO tries to be an educator by supplying "intellectual ammunition" - the idea being that we provide information for folks to use the best they can, to further the fight against "Gun Control". We are tax exempt and cannot lobby or endorse but, for sure we can give you the fodder you need such that you can do your bit the best way you can. The fight to preserve our 2A is vital.

Researching to find data, writing articles, as well maintaining the site - all takes time and expense and so, help towards keeping this active and vital is essential. We would encourage anyone who finds our efforts worthwhile to become a member, or even donate - it all helps us survive and continue the hard fought battle.

Please dig deep, use the search, explore through our menus - find even old pages and pass them on. Dissemination of material is invaluable.

July 16, 2007

Harvard's View of the Parker Case

Share/Bookmark    rss-feed

In March of this year, firearms owners everywhere celebrated the Parker decision, in which the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declared the D.C. gun law unconstitutional to the extent that the law prohibits all firearms possession. You can read our original analysis here: . In May, the full D.C. Court refused to hear the case "en banc", paving the way for a Supreme Court decision.

The Harvard Law Review recently published an article discussing the ramifications of the Parker decision, and what the Supreme Court might do if they hear the case. You can read the article at or

Despite optimism from pro-gun circles, it doesn't look good. As the article states, "The ruling – in Parker v. District of Columbia – marked the first time a gun law has been found unconstitutional based on the Second Amendment, and it set up a direct conflict among the circuits. Nine federal appeals courts around the nation have adopted the view that the amendment guarantees only the collective right of organized state militias to bear arms, not an individual's right. (A 5th Circuit panel found that individuals have gun rights but upheld the regulation in question, so both sides claim that ruling as a victory.)"

Former District of Columbia Mayor Anthony Williams is quoted as saying, "Let's take [Justice Antonin] Scalia's approach. I think the framers' intent was to see to it that [through] militias, states as sovereign entities had a right to arm themselves. To me, it's not about individuals -- it's about groups."

Harvard Professor Mark Tushnet says, "My gut feeling is that there are not five votes to say the individual-rights position is correct. [Justice Anthony] Kennedy comes from a segment of the Republican Party that is not rabidly pro-gun rights and indeed probably is sympathetic to hunters but not terribly sympathetic to handgun owners. Then the standard liberals will probably say 'collective rights.'"

Even if the Supreme Court does deem firearms ownership as an individual right, we still aren't safe. Says Tushnet, "Once you recognize [gun ownership] as an individual right, then the work shifts to figuring out what type of regulation is permissible."

So what's the bottom line according to one of Harvard's Constitutional experts? In a sidebar ( see or ), Professor Tushnet states, "Gun-control proponents have a significantly stronger case than their adversaries if we treat the question of interpreting the Second Amendment as an ordinary constitutional question and use all the interpretive tools judges ordinarily use."

We encourage our readers to continue to watch the Parker case closely. You can read or download our interview with author and attorney David T. Hardy at , in which we discuss the case at length.

The JPFO Liberty Crew
Protecting you by creating solutions to destroy "gun control"



Back to Top