Second Amendment Experts Say Lawyer's Arrest Illustrates Misunderstood Gun Laws

Immediately after New Haven immigration attorney Sung-Ho Hwang was arrested with a gun tucked in his waistband at a theater showing 'Dark Knight Rises,' his lawyer derided the actions of police officers as "baseless."

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at

What's being said

  • Ken Laska

    At the time the 2nd amendment was adopted there were flintlocks and cannons. Citizens carried flintlocks, but not cannons. One shot from a flintlock could kill one person. One shot from a cannon could kill many. So if you are of the "Original Intent" Justice Scalia line of reason, we have to figure out what the founding fathers meant by the 2nd amendment. I think we can all agree it did not mean that Daniel Boone had the right to carry a cannon, but he did have the right to carry a flintlock.

    Fast forward to now. A pistol or a rifle now has as much destructive force as a Cannon back in the times of John Adams. Does anybody in their right mind think that John Adams, Thomas Jefferson or Roger Sherman, would say that Natty Bumpko had the right to carry a cannon around with him?

    So why should someone have the right today to carry a weapon that would kill not just one, but many? Or for that matter how about Johnny down the street keeping an atomic bomb in his garage? I guess that is an original thought for those of original intent.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202567942320

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.

Recommended for You