Until the Clinton administration any Congressperson could get a "deputy US Marshal" letter for the asking. I vaguely remember that being exposed in the press and they stopped issuing them. That would indicate that there is no direct statutory authority. But I'm not good enough at Westlaw to find a well-hidden grant of authority. In any event it is special/"corrupt" treatment.
>>> "Volokh, Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 03/26/07 5:50 PM >>> Sorry, but I just thought I'd clarify: Are we sure that there is no statutory exemption for Congressmen, or some permitting scheme that gives them licenses to carry? Or is this just a general statement that any such scheme is in a sense "mildly corrupt"? Eugene
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof 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.
