"Justice who wrote gun decision is a gun dealer"

[Janet Alexander]

How about substituting "abortion provider" for "gun dealer" and make 
it a case about a limitation on access to abortions?  Let's even say 
that the judge is a volunteer "abortion provider" so makes no money 
from the business.

At 05:52 PM 10/10/2009, Volokh, Eugene wrote:
>         I realize this is a question chiefly about legal ethics, 
> but it arises in a constitutional rights case, so I thought I'd ask 
> it here:  Are the criticisms mentioned in the article below at all 
> sensible?  (For more on the case, see 
> http://www.volokh.com/posts/1251496843.shtml .)
>
>         I would think they're not:  Certainly federally licensed 
> gun dealers' incomes would be almost entirely unaffected by 
> decisions that increase, by a tiny amount, the number of lawful gun 
> owners.  (The decision didn't say that all convicted felons 
> nonetheless have a state constitutional right to own a gun, but was 
> focused on one felon who had had a long-ago conviction and an 
> exemplary record since; and the set of felons who were barred from 
> owning guns by state law but nonetheless were allowed to own guns 
> under federal law, because their civil rights had been restored, 
> was also very small.)  And beyond that, surely we wouldn't condemn 
> a judge for deciding (say) in favor of greater protection of 
> obscenity just because it slightly increases the number of 
> magazines that could be carried in a convenience store he owns -- 
> even if that store already sells some Playboys (which aren't the 
> subject of the case).  But maybe I'm missing something.  Any thoughts on this?
>
>         Eugene
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: firearmsregprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu 
>[mailto:firearmsregprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Henry E Schaffer
>Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 2:17 PM
>To: firearmsregprof at lists.ucla.edu
>Subject: "Justice who wrote gun decision is a gun dealer"
>
>http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local_state/story/134741.html
>OCT 10, 2009
>RALEIGH -- The N.C. Supreme Court attracted national attention a few
>weeks ago as the first court in the nation to rule that a convicted
>felon has a right to own a gun.
>
>What drew little notice is that Edward Thomas Brady, the justice who
>wrote the 5-2 decision in August, is a federally licensed gun dealer and
>gun manufacturer who has collected more than $5,000 a year from gun
>sales since 2007.
>
>Legal experts split over whether Brady was properly bringing his
>perspective to the case or should have recused himself from the
>decision.
>
>"I don't think gun dealers should be deciding the constitutionality of
>gun laws," said Dennis Henigan, vice president for law and policy at the
>pro-gun control Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington.
>
>Gene Nichol, a law professor at UNC-Chapel Hill, described the ruling by
>the justices as "the most aggressive gun rights decision" in the
>country. "Then you read that the highly-activist opinion is written by a
>gun dealer and manufacturer," he said. "It sure smells."
>
>Other legal scholars, however, countered that the decision was narrowly
>written to resolve that particular case and likely wouldn't apply to
>many others.
>
>Two former state chief justices, one a Republican and the other a
>Democrat, said they saw no need for Brady to recuse himself.
>
>"It seems to me that there's no conflict nor even arguably the
>appearance of a conflict," said Burley Mitchell, a Democrat and chief
>justice from 1995 to 1999. "I've got a driver's license, but I regularly
>ruled on cases involving automobiles and driver's rights. If a judge
>starts recusing over connections that remote, you'll have a judiciary
>that can dodge every difficult case."
>
>   ...
>--
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed 
>as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that 
>are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can 
>(rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.