the basis of his knowledge.rnFollowing current case law, the Floridarncourt suppressed evidence of the gun,rnsince the gun had been illegally seized.rnThe Florida attorney general appealedrnthe case, which eventually reached thernU.S. Supreme Court. There, the attorneyrngeneral argued that there should be arn”firearms exception” to the FourthrnAmendment. Because guns are so dangerous,rnthe attorney general reasoned,rnsearches for them shoidd not have tornmeet ordinary Fourth Amendment standards.rnWriting for a unanimous SupremernCourt, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disagreed,rnnoting how easy it would be tornharass citizens if anonymous tips aboutrnguns could, by themselves, serve as thernbasis for a search.rnIn a 1968 case, Terry v. Ohio, thernSupreme Court created a large FourthrnAmendment loophole by allowing policernofficers to stop and search people whornseemed to be acting in a suspicious manner.rnAlthough Terry was premised on thernneed for officer safety, in case the suspiciousrnperson were a criminal who mightrnuse a gun against the officer, the case becamernthe foundation for dozens of newrnFourth Amendment exceptions, usuallyrnin situations having little to do with policernsafety. Had the Florida attorney generalrnprevailed in Florida v. ].L., the casernwould have established the foundationrnfor many more exceptions to the FourthrnAmendment.rnAlthough J.L. involved a search of arnpedestrian, there would have been immediaternpressure to apply the “firearmsrnexception” to searches of automobiles,rnbusinesses, and homes. All over therncountry, prosecutors would have arguedrnthat Fourth Amendment protectionrnshould also be suspended when officersrnsuspect that people possess other dangerousrnthings, such as knives, brass knuckles.rnor drugs.rnSince ordinary Fourth Amendmentrnrestrictions would not apply, mere assertionsrn(rather than probable cause or reasonablernsuspicion) would have becomernthe basis for searches, leaving everyone inrnjeopardy of being searched at whim.rnThe Supreme Court’s swift and unanimousrnruling may signal its unwillingnessrnto let political hysteria over guns be usedrnto weaken the Bill of Rights. If so, today’srnCourt is wiser than the Court of thern1920’s (when fear of communism was allowedrnto trump the First Amendment) orrnthe 1980’s (when the “drug war” was allowedrnto degenerate into a war on thernConsHtution).rnNot since World War I has there beenrna Democratic President so aggressivelyrnhostile to the Bill of Rights, so it was notrnsurprising that Clinton’s solicitor generalrnfiled an amicus brief in favor of thern”firearms exception.”rnWliat was surprising, however, was thernbroad collection of amici who wrote inrnsupport of the Fourth Amendment. ThernAmerican Civil Liberties Union and thernNational Association of Criminal DefensernLawyers supplied amicus briefs, asrnthey often do in Fourth Amendment cases.rnBut so did the Rutherford Institute,rnwhich focuses mainly on freedom of religion.rnThe National Rifle Associationrnjoined with the Independence Institute,rnin a brief I co-authored, to point out thatrnthe carrying of firearms is common andrnlegal in most of the United States, andrnnot inherently suspicious. Even thernSouthern Poverty Law Center, which hasrnspent much of the past decade raising direct-rnmail revenue from credulous donorsrnpanicked about “militia terrorism,” contributedrnan amicus briefrnGrover Norquist, head of Americansrnfor Tax Reform, has observed the growthrnof a coalition in which disparate groupsrncome together to uphold the principlernBOOK OF NEXT MONTHrnSeveral important “conservative” writers have produced fine crirntiques of modern education, e.g., Albert Jay Nock, Thomas Molnar,rnand Russell Kirk, but few moderns on either side (with thernexception of Rousseau) have offered a positive vision. For thatrnreason, we are going ad fontes for our basic work on education, tornQuintilian’s Institutio Oratoria, a work that describes the idearnpreparation for an orator—that is, an educated man who wantsrnto put his talents to public use. Quintilian’s great virtue is hisrnlack of originality. For the most part, he gives the commonrnsense of the ancient world, and if we are to restorerncommon sense to ours, we may have to go back 2,000 yearsrnthat government should leave peoplernalone. Homeschoolers, gun owners, andrnhemp activists are realizing that protectingrnthe lifestyles of people they don’t likernis the best way to ensure protection forrntheir own lifestyle. Florida v. J.L. was arngreat victory for the Bill of Rights. Asrngroups such as /.L.’s very diverse amicirncome to understand their common interestrnin protecting every single liberty setrnforth in the Bill of Rights, there will bernmore victories for the Constitution.rn—Dave KopelrnT H E CHECHEN BOYEVIKl (“warrnriors”) are widening the war with Russia,rndashing any hopes the Kremlin had ofrncontaining the conflict. On May 10, arngroup of 30 to 40 boyeviki practicallyrnwiped out an Internal Troops (MVD)rnconvoy (killing 22 of 26 men) in thernneighboring Ingush republic, embarrassingrnMoscow and sparking a war of wordsrnbetween the Russian military and IngushrnPresident Ruslan Aushev, each blamingrnthe other for the incident. Aushevrnclaimed that the surprise attack was yetrnanother indicator of the Russian military’srnincompetence, since it came just arnfew kilometers from the Chechen borderrnand the convoy did not take even elementaryrnsecurity precautions. The militaryrnfired back by questioning Aushev’srnloyalty (the Ingush and Chechens are relatedrnpeoples), inadvertently pointing outrnwhat most Russians already know: ThernCaucasian, mostly Muslim, republicsrnsympathize with the Chechens and wantrnMoscow to talk peace with ChechenrnPresident Asian Maskhadov.rnIn fact, Duma deputy Pavel Krashennikovrn—probably with the Kremlin’srnblessing—had recently met with Maskhadov’srnrepresentative in Ingushetia,rnleading some pundits to conclude thatrnboth Maskhadov and President VladimirrnPutin were ready to negotiate and thatrnsomebody, most likely the more belligerentrnChechen “field commanders,” wantedrnto undercut peace talks. It is entirelyrnpossible, however, that hawks in the Russianrnmilitary, warned by Russian intelligencernfor weeks of upcoming Chechenrnefforts to widen the war, deliberately keptrntheir guard down, hoping for an attack.rnGennadi Troshev, Russia’s commanderrnof ground forces in Chechnya, hasrnmore than once declared that any talksrnwith the Chechens would be “treason.”rnMeanwhile, the military has been cashingrnin on its support for Putin during thern8/CHRONICLESrnrnrn