Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Proposed Gun Control Legislation Does Not Violate Second Amendment - Say 52 US Law Profs


  • Please log in to reply
152 replies to this topic

#1 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 30 January 2013 - 10:54 PM

Here is what Geoffrey R. Stone (Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law, University of Chicago) and UCLA law professor Adam Winkler have to say and they are joined by 50 of the most distinguished US constitutional law professors. In their opinion the proposed changes are constitutional and in line with the SCOC case law set out in the 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. __, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008).
http://www.huffingto..._b_2581625.html


The following statement, which UCLA law professor Adam Winkler and I crafted, was signed by more than fifty of the nation's most distinguished constitutional law professors. The statement refutes unfounded claims that the Second Amendment precludes Congress from enacting legislation to reduce gun violence in the United States. Although these scholars hold widely divergent views on constitutional interpretation, and often fiercely disagree on a broad range of constitutional issues, they all agree on this question. The statement was submitted today to Congress in anticipation of the beginning of hearings on the proposed legislation.


Statement of Professors of Constitutional Law: The Second Amendment and the Constitutionality of the Proposed Gun Violence Prevention Legislation


Several proposed reforms to the nation's gun laws, including universal background checks and restrictions on high-capacity ammunition magazines and assault weapons, are now pending before Congress. Concerns have been raised that these measures might violate the Second Amendment. We, the undersigned professors with expertise in constitutional law, write to address those concerns.


In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment, which provides, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," guarantees an individual's right to have a functional firearm in the home for self-defense. The Court's decision in that case, District of Columbia v. Heller, struck down a D.C. law that effectively barred the use of any firearm for self-defense. The law is now clear that the government may not completely disarm law-abiding, responsible citizens. The Court also made clear, however, that many gun regulations remain constitutionally permissible. "Like most rights," the Court explained, "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." Writing for the Court, Justice Antonin Scalia explained that restrictions on "dangerous and unusual" weapons are constitutional and that "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt" on laws that prohibit "the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill" or laws that impose "conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."


In this sense, Justice Scalia recognized in Heller that, like other constitutional rights, the Second Amendment is not an absolute. The First Amendment, for example, provides that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech," but the Supreme Court has long and consistently held that some types of speech -- for example, defamation, obscenity and threats -- can be regulated; that some people -- for example, public employees, members of the military, students and prisoners -- are subject to greater restrictions on their speech than others; and that the government can reasonably regulate the time, place and manner of speech. As Justice Scalia explained in Heller, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment are likewise subject to appropriate regulation in order to enhance public safety.


In acknowledging the presumptive constitutionality of laws designed to prevent gun violence, including restrictions on who has access to firearms and what types of firearms they may have, Heller is consistent with the history of the right to keep and bear arms. The founding fathers who wrote and ratified the Second Amendment also had laws to keep guns out of the hands of people thought to be untrustworthy. Such laws were necessary to ensure that the citizen militia referenced in the Second Amendment was "well regulated." In the 1800s, many states restricted the sale or public possession of concealable firearms. In the early twentieth century, the federal government restricted access to unusually dangerous weapons, such as machine guns, and states barred people convicted of certain felonies from possessing firearms. Laws such as these were routinely upheld by the courts, which recognized the legitimacy of legislative efforts to keep the most dangerous weapons out of the hands of the most dangerous people.


While the permissibility of any particular reform depends on its details, the reforms currently being considered by Congress are clearly consistent with the Second Amendment. We express no view on the effectiveness or desirability of the policies reflected in the various proposals, but we all agree that none infringes the core right identified by the Court in Heller.


Universal background checks, especially those conducted instantaneously through the National Instant Background Check System, do not impose a significant burden on law-abiding citizens. Yet background checks may provide an important safeguard against easy access to guns by members of criminal street gangs, other felons and the mentally ill. As with other rights that have eligibility criteria, such as the right to vote, the right to keep and bear arms is not offended by neutral measures designed to ensure that only eligible, law-abiding citizens exercise the right. Moreover, background checks imposed at the point of sale are typical of the "conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms" recognized by the Supreme Court in Heller.


Restrictions on the manufacture and sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines and assault weapons are also consistent with the Second Amendment. In a recent opinion authored by Judge Douglas Ginsburg and joined by Judge Karen Henderson, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that such regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment and with the Supreme Court's decision in Heller. The court of appeals recognized such weapons and magazines are not necessary for individual self-defense -- what Heller called the "core lawful purpose" of the Second Amendment. Restrictions on high-capacity magazines and assault weapons, the court of appeals held, do "not effectively disarm individuals or substantially affect their ability to defend themselves." The Second Amendment, like the First Amendment, does not prevent lawmakers from enacting reasonable regulations that do not seriously interfere with the core right guaranteed by the Constitution.


The Supreme Court has clearly held that the Second Amendment preserves the right of law-abiding citizens to have a firearm in the home for self-defense. As both the historical tradition of the right to bear arms and the Court's decision suggest, reasonable and limited measures to enhance public safety that do not unduly burden that right are consistent with the Second Amendment.


Signed,


Bruce Ackerman

Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science, Yale Law School


Albert W. Alschuler

Julius Kreeger Professor Emeritus, The University of Chicago Law School


Mitchell N. Berman

Richard Dale Endowed Chair in Law, The University of Texas School of Law


Ashutosh Bhagwat, Professor of Law

UC Davis School of Law


Joseph Blocher

Associate Professor of Law, Duke Law School


Lee C. Bollinger

President, Columbia University


Rebecca L. Brown

Newton Professor of Constitutional Law, USC Gould School of Law


Alan Brownstein

Professor of Law, Boochever and Bird Chair, UC Davis School of Law


Erwin Chemerinsky

Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law, UC Irvine School of Law


Dan T. Coenen

University Professor and Harmon W. Caldwell Chair, University of Georgia Law


Walter E. Dellinger III

Douglas B. Maggs Emeritus Professor of Law, Duke Law School


Michael C. Dorf

Robert S. Stevens Professor of Law, Cornell University Law School


Lee Epstein

Provost Professor and Rader Family Trustee Chair in Law, USC Gould School of Law


Richard A. Epstein

Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University School of Law


Daniel A. Farber

Sho Sato Professor of Law, UC Berkeley School of Law


Owen M. Fiss

Sterling Professor Emeritus of Law and Professorial Lecturer in Law, Yale Law School


Charles Fried

Beneficial Professor of Law, Harvard Law School


Barry Friedman

Jacob D. Fuchsberg Professor of Law, New York University School of Law


Risa Goluboff

Justice Thurgood Marshall Professor of Law, The University of Virginia School of Law


Jamal Greene

Professor of Law, Columbia Law School


H. Kent Greenfield

Professor of Law and Law Fund Research Scholar, Boston College Law School


Ariela Gross

John B. and Alice R. Sharp Professor of Law and History, USC Gould School of Law


Roderick M. Hills, Jr.,

William T. Comfort, III Professor of Law, New York University School of Law


Samuel Issacharoff

Bonnie and Richard Reiss Professor, New York University School of Law


John C. Jeffries, Jr.

David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor and former Dean, University of Virginia


Dawn Johnsen

Walter W. Foskett Professor of Law, Indiana University Maurer School of Law


Mark R. Killenbeck

Wylie H. Davis Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Arkansas School of Law


Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Jr.

John S. Stone Chair, Professor of Law, University of Alabama


Carlton F.W. Larson

Professor of Law, UC Davis School of Law


Lawrence Lessig

Roy L. Furman Professor of Law, Harvard Law School


Sanford V. Levinson

W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood, Jr., Centennial Chair, University of Texas


William P. Marshall

William Rand Kenan, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina


Frank I. Michelman

Robert Walmsley University Professor, Emeritus, Harvard Law School


Darrell Miller

Professor of Law, University of Cincinnati College of Law


Alan B. Morrison

Lerner Family Associate Dean, The George Washington University Law School


Gene R. Nichol

Boyd Tinsley Distinguished Professor of Law, UNC School of Law


Spencer A. Overton

Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School


Eric Posner

Kirkland & Ellis Distinguished Service Professor, The University of Chicago Law School


Lawrence Rosenthal

Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law


Theodore Ruger

Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School


Jane S. Schacter

William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law, Stanford Law School


Stephen J. Schulhofer

Robert B. McKay Professor of Law, New York University School of Law


Neil S. Siegel

Professor of Law and Political Science, Duke Law School


Reva Siegel

Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Professor of Law, Yale Law School


Geoffrey R. Stone

Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor and former Dean, The University of Chicago


David A. Strauss

Gerald Ratner Distinguished Service Professor of Law, The University of Chicago


Laurence H. Tribe

Carl M. Loeb University Professor and Professor of Constitutional Law, Harvard Law School


Mark Tushnet

William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law, Harvard Law School


Jonathan D. Varat

Professor of Law and former Dean, UCLA School of Law


Keith Wehran

Ashton Phelps Chair of Constitutional Law, Tulane University School of Law


Adam Winkler

Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law

http://www.huffingto..._b_2581625.html

Edited by Wetcoaster, 20 February 2013 - 12:19 PM.

  • 1
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#2 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 30 January 2013 - 11:50 PM

And a considered response from the NRA's CEO Wayne Lapierre.

When Will These Senseless Gun Debates Come To An End? By Wayne LaPierre


We live in a great country. Between our democratic values, constitutional freedoms, and rich traditions, Americans enjoy immense privileges and benefits that allow us to enjoy the highest standard of living in the world. But, my friends, there is one area where I would like to say “Enough is enough.” For all our pride and progressivism, America still has a well-documented history of gun debates spanning back centuries—shocking and horrific debates that, despite our best efforts, show no signs of abating.


So, as a concerned American living in the 21st century, I must ask: What will it take for these senseless gun debates to end?


The answer is not a simple one. Sadly, the United States is a culture in which gun debates are deeply embedded and ingrained, with American children witnessing thousands and thousands of discussions on gun control and regulation by the time they are grown. For countless numbers of youths, these discourses on proper policing of handguns and rifles have become simply a fact of life. Why, it seems like everytime I turn on the television I see that some crazed reformer in Washington has unleashed yet another horrific gun debate, presenting their legislative arguments to dozens of colleagues.


It’s truly tragic.


Nearly every incident is the same: some progressive madman, having convinced himself that gun debates are the solution to some problem or another—God only knows what—devises a plan to present a meticulously researched plan on gun reform to a group of innocent citizens or pro-gun advocates, often at a large party, town hall, or congressional hearing. When the time comes, he lays out his arguments as comprehensively and coherently as possible and to as many audience members as he can. God, just talking about it now makes my blood run cold.


What we need to do now is come together as a nation and agree on a plan to prevent these civil discussions from ever happening again. Personally, I believe the mental health of the legislators involved needs to be assessed. I also believe we need to make it harder for Congress to have access to gun debate platforms in the first place. After all, if we keep allowing the average member of Congress off the street to freely legislate in our nation’s capitol then these harrowing, senseless debates on gun control will continue to happen and we will be powerless to stop them.


How many more gun control debates do we need to stand by and idly witness in horror before we put a stop to them altogether?


I, for one, am confident that by working together, one step at a time, we can eliminate gun debates in America entirely. Yes, you heard me right. Now it may take some time before we are able to ban discussions altogether; after all, the right to discuss reform is in our constitution, whether we like it not. But by taking small actions every day, like pushing hard in Congress and cracking down on reformers now, I’m confident we can create a nation where every man, woman, and child can live without fear of gun reform.


Please help me in this fight. The lives of our existing gun laws are too precious not to.

NOTE: This satire from The Onion
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#3 DonLever

DonLever

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,438 posts
  • Joined: 11-December 08

Posted 31 January 2013 - 12:35 AM

Well, you could probably find 52 law professors that say the opposite.

Banning assault type weapons will do little to stop gun violence because most gun deaths are caused by handguns.

The 1994 ban on assault weapons did nothing to stop gun violence.

So what happens next if the ban on assault weapons fail? A ban on handguns? That will never fly.
  • 1

#4 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 31 January 2013 - 12:42 AM

Well, you could probably find 52 law professors that say the opposite.

Banning assault type weapons will do little to stop gun violence because most gun deaths are caused by handguns.

The 1994 ban on assault weapons did nothing to stop gun violence.

So what happens next if the ban on assault weapons fail? A ban on handguns? That will never fly.

Seems unlikely that you would find even a half-dozen constitutional law professors of this stature to say the opposite.

Obviously handguns cannot be banned - you did read Heller, did you not?
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#5 Aladeen

Aladeen

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,902 posts
  • Joined: 22-September 07

Posted 31 January 2013 - 01:23 AM

But, but how will I be able to hunt deer with out my fully automatic high powered mounted .50cal with cyanide tipped armoured piercing rounds?!?!?!??!
  • 0
Posted Image

#6 thepedestrian

thepedestrian

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 340 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 06

Posted 31 January 2013 - 01:50 AM

Wetcoaster, you're still blinded from the truth.
  • 0

#7 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 31 January 2013 - 01:53 AM

Wetcoaster, you're still blinded from the truth.

How so?
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#8 Dazzle

Dazzle

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,409 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 06

Posted 31 January 2013 - 04:28 AM

Wetcoaster, you're still blinded from the truth.


Easy for you to say when you can make a one-lined opinion and not have to back it up with your words.
  • 0
Posted Image --> THANKS EGATTI.

I have to say Dazzle's was the coolest. ROTFLOL


#9 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,012 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 31 January 2013 - 07:48 AM

Well, some 52 hand-picked professors, largely members of political advocacy groups like American Constitution Society (that filed briefings on the Heller case, and logically were ignored) that regularly have Democrats with a gun control agenda speaking at their events, regurgitate typical anti-gun nut belief in gun control banning high capacity magazines and assault weapons. I guess the nation should comply now. Posted Image

Edited by zaibatsu, 31 January 2013 - 07:50 AM.

  • 0

#10 Scott Hartnell's Mane

Scott Hartnell's Mane

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 12

Posted 31 January 2013 - 07:55 AM

Well, some 52 hand-picked professors, largely members of political advocacy groups like American Constitution Society (that filed briefings on the Heller case, and logically were ignored) that regularly have Democrats with a gun control agenda speaking at their events, regurgitate typical anti-gun nut belief in gun control banning high capacity magazines and assault weapons. I guess the nation should comply now. Posted Image


Agreed. This is such a small number it doesn't merit consideration as well. 5200, I would care, even 520...52? Who cares. And you're absolutely right (as difficult as this is for me to say :P) the anti gunners are guilty of the same kind of crap as the pro gunners are. In some cases the anti-gunners are even MORE radical. There either has to be middle ground here or this debate will continue ad infinitum.
  • 0
Posted Image

Well I tell you what Heretic..if Tim Tebow becomes Terry Bradshaw I will shave off all my hair, convert to Christianity, go into the ministry and become a preacher.


#11 literaphile

literaphile

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 571 posts
  • Joined: 25-March 06

Posted 31 January 2013 - 08:13 AM

Well, you could probably find 52 law professors that say the opposite.


OK - find 52 law professors that say the opposite then.
  • 0

#12 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,009 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 31 January 2013 - 08:17 AM

Wetcoaster, you're still blinded from the truth.


Please feel free to clear the cobwebs away and enlighten us with your version of the "truth" ..
  • 0

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#13 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,680 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 31 January 2013 - 08:33 AM

OK - find 52 law professors that say the opposite then.

52 recently employed professors maybe...Anyway, I believe the tens of millions of U.S. gun owners and Constitutionalists carry a lot more weight than some ivory tower dwelling political puppets.
  • 0
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas

#14 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,217 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 31 January 2013 - 08:34 AM

Well, you could probably find 52 law professors that say the opposite.

Banning assault type weapons will do little to stop gun violence because most gun deaths are caused by handguns.

The 1994 ban on assault weapons did nothing to stop gun violence.

So what happens next if the ban on assault weapons fail? A ban on handguns? That will never fly.


If you want to play with assault weapons, join the armed forces.

An 8000 rounds per minute assault weapon was designed for one thing only - killing people.
  • 0

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#15 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,680 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 31 January 2013 - 08:44 AM

If you want to play with assault weapons, join the armed forces.

An 8000 rounds per minute assault weapon was designed for one thing only - killing people.

The original and by far the largest branch of the U.S. armed forces, is known as the militia.
  • 0
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas

#16 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,012 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 31 January 2013 - 09:24 AM

If you want to play with assault weapons, join the armed forces.

An 8000 rounds per minute assault weapon was designed for one thing only - killing people.

If one considers the Bushmaster Adam Lanza used, it's a whopping 45 rounds per minute.

But seeing hyperbole expressed along side gun control is hardly a surprise.
  • 1

#17 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,680 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 31 January 2013 - 10:01 AM

It doesn't look like Lanza even used an AR-15, he did however follow Joe Biden's advice and brought a shotgun along, though he did't use that either.
  • 0
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas

#18 Scott Hartnell's Mane

Scott Hartnell's Mane

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 12

Posted 31 January 2013 - 10:04 AM

What would be ideal: For the fanatical pro-gun lunatics and the fanatical anti-gun lunatics to actually read the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights...in the context in which it was written. Far as I am aware, we are far from being in danger of invasion...by the English or anyone else. Then...a compromise everyone can live with. And then I woke up.
  • 0
Posted Image

Well I tell you what Heretic..if Tim Tebow becomes Terry Bradshaw I will shave off all my hair, convert to Christianity, go into the ministry and become a preacher.


#19 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 31 January 2013 - 10:14 AM

Well, some 52 hand-picked professors, largely members of political advocacy groups like American Constitution Society (that filed briefings on the Heller case, and logically were ignored) that regularly have Democrats with a gun control agenda speaking at their events, regurgitate typical anti-gun nut belief in gun control banning high capacity magazines and assault weapons. I guess the nation should comply now. Posted Image

The briefs were not ignored.

Four of the Justices dissenting from the five Justice majority accepted the premise that the phrase well-regulated militia controlled the following words which had been the law up to that point and that there was no independent individual right to bear arms.

As the article points out the majority accepted that even under their new interpretation of the Second Amendment, gun control legislation was constitutional but it was not possible to ban handguns for the purpose of self-defence.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#20 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 31 January 2013 - 10:16 AM

Agreed. This is such a small number it doesn't merit consideration as well. 5200, I would care, even 520...52? Who cares. And you're absolutely right (as difficult as this is for me to say :P) the anti gunners are guilty of the same kind of crap as the pro gunners are. In some cases the anti-gunners are even MORE radical. There either has to be middle ground here or this debate will continue ad infinitum.

It is not just 52 law professors - it is 52 constitutional law professors recognized as being the top experts in their field.
  • 1
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#21 Scott Hartnell's Mane

Scott Hartnell's Mane

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 12

Posted 31 January 2013 - 10:19 AM

The briefs were not ignored.

Four of the Justices dissenting from the five Justice majority accepted the premise that the phrase well-regulated militia controlled the following words which had been the law up to that point and that there was no independent individual right to bear arms.

As the article points out the majority accepted that even under their new interpretation of the Second Amendment, gun control legislation was constitutional but it was not possible to ban handguns for the purpose of self-defence.


You know what...I could live with that. Absolutely. Ban these extraneous weapons with no other real purpose but allow handguns for self defense. This is a compromise that would work if people would understand what it's saying...all the gun nuts are seeing reading that is "they're still takin' our guns..." Moderation is the key and in my opinion moderation on gun control is the only possible solution.

Sigh...but I forget this is the United States of America...land of the corpulent, home of the Whopper...Moderation isn't in our vocabulary.

Edited by Scott Hartnell's Mane, 31 January 2013 - 10:25 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image

Well I tell you what Heretic..if Tim Tebow becomes Terry Bradshaw I will shave off all my hair, convert to Christianity, go into the ministry and become a preacher.


#22 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 31 January 2013 - 10:27 AM

It doesn't look like Lanza even used an AR-15, he did however follow Joe Biden's advice and brought a shotgun along, though he did't use that either.

Dr. H. Wayne Carver, the state of Connecticut's Chief Medical Examiner whose office did the autopsies says otherwise. Carver himself had examined seven bodies —all were first graders. They had been shot at least three to 11 times, he said.


Adam Lanza used a Bushmaster .223 semi-automatic rifle at close range to kill children and adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut on Friday.


"I believe everybody was hit more than once," said Dr. H. Wayne Carver, the state of Connecticut's Chief Medical Examiner.


He said the bullets were uniquely damaging and that Lanza's victims died almost immediately.


"The bullets are designed in such a fashion the energy is deposited in the tissue so the bullet stays in," Carver said. He described the wounds as a "very devastating set of injuries."

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/connecticut-shooter-adam-lanza-mothers-guns/story?id=17984499
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#23 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,217 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 31 January 2013 - 10:30 AM

If one considers the Bushmaster Adam Lanza used, it's a whopping 45 rounds per minute.

But seeing hyperbole expressed along side gun control is hardly a surprise.


Just quoting what a co-worker of mine said to me yesterday - he's American and lives in Kentucky.
He has a glock and did service in the US Army. He believes in the 2nd amendment but also believes no civilian should ever own an assault weapon. He said one of his redneck cousins owns an AR-15 - he meant to say 800 rounds per minute (not 8000).
  • 0

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#24 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 31 January 2013 - 10:35 AM

You know what...I could live with that. Absolutely. Ban these extraneous weapons with no other real purpose but allow handguns for self defense. This is a compromise that would work if people would understand what it's saying...all the gun nuts are seeing reading that is "they're still takin' our guns..." Moderation is the key and in my opinion moderation on gun control is the only possible solution.

Sigh...but I forget this is the United States of America...land of the corpulent, home of the Whopper...Moderation isn't in our vocabulary.

The article i posted in the OP recognized that a complete ban on firearms for self-defence was unconstitutional but there can be controls enacted that would be constitutional based upon Heller but as you say that position will be misinterpreted by the gun nuts.

As noted the article says:

The Court's decision in that case, District of Columbia v. Heller, struck down a D.C. law that effectively barred the use of any firearm for self-defense. The law is now clear that the government may not completely disarm law-abiding, responsible citizens. The Court also made clear, however, that many gun regulations remain constitutionally permissible. "Like most rights," the Court explained, "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." Writing for the Court, Justice Antonin Scalia explained that restrictions on "dangerous and unusual" weapons are constitutional and that "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt" on laws that prohibit "the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill" or laws that impose "conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

...

While the permissibility of any particular reform depends on its details, the reforms currently being considered by Congress are clearly consistent with the Second Amendment. We express no view on the effectiveness or desirability of the policies reflected in the various proposals, but we all agree that none infringes the core right identified by the Court in Heller.


  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#25 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,680 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 31 January 2013 - 10:42 AM

<p>

Dr. H. Wayne Carver, the state of Connecticut's Chief Medical Examiner whose office did the autopsies says otherwise. Carver himself had examined seven bodies —all were first graders. They had been shot at least three to 11 times, he said.



Adam Lanza used a Bushmaster .223 semi-automatic rifle at close range to kill children and adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut on Friday.


"I believe everybody was hit more than once," said Dr. H. Wayne Carver, the state of Connecticut's Chief Medical Examiner.


He said the bullets were uniquely damaging and that Lanza's victims died almost immediately.


"The bullets are designed in such a fashion the energy is deposited in the tissue so the bullet stays in," Carver said. He described the wounds as a "very devastating set of injuries."

http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=17984499

Check the date on the article, a lot of stuff seems to have changed between then and now.
  • 0
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas

#26 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 31 January 2013 - 10:47 AM

<p>
Check the date on the article, a lot of stuff seems to have changed between then and now.

I know the date but as of yet the Medical Examiner has not changed his findings AFAIK. If you have something that indicates that he has done so please post it.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#27 Trelane42

Trelane42

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 435 posts
  • Joined: 08-July 10

Posted 31 January 2013 - 12:54 PM

Going by names alone I would guess that the number of gentile whites--the nation’s founders and authors of the constitution now undergoing reinterpretation--willing to put their name to that rag is maybe 20%.

If the federal government takes its policy cues from similarly constituted groups, perhaps the denizens of fly-over country would be better served by cutting ties with Washington and getting their own government.

For those in the nosebleeds, merrily ignorant of US history, to say nothing of contents of the “federalist papers,” for the umpteenth time: it’s about preventing government excesses, not hunting bambi.
  • 0

#28 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,012 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 31 January 2013 - 01:15 PM

Just quoting what a co-worker of mine said to me yesterday - he's American and lives in Kentucky.
He has a glock and did service in the US Army. He believes in the 2nd amendment but also believes no civilian should ever own an assault weapon. He said one of his redneck cousins owns an AR-15 - he meant to say 800 rounds per minute (not 8000).

Page 2 -- "Facts about your Bushmaster XM15-E2S.". Hope you trust Bushmaster over your friend about the specs of their own guns.

http://www.ar15.com/..._bushmaster.pdf

These are not submachine guns. I would suggest watching this Senator's explanations about the stigma of "assault rifles" and the demonising of the way they look, as well as the sensibility of such targeting of these weapon times like the way Feinstein and the public do. (fast forward to 5:30:00 and beyond if you wish to avoid the other stuff)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi6gZU01yF8

Edited by zaibatsu, 31 January 2013 - 01:18 PM.

  • 0

#29 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,217 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 31 January 2013 - 01:55 PM

Page 2 -- "Facts about your Bushmaster XM15-E2S.". Hope you trust Bushmaster over your friend about the specs of their own guns.

http://www.ar15.com/..._bushmaster.pdf

These are not submachine guns. I would suggest watching this Senator's explanations about the stigma of "assault rifles" and the demonising of the way they look, as well as the sensibility of such targeting of these weapon times like the way Feinstein and the public do. (fast forward to 5:30:00 and beyond if you wish to avoid the other stuff)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi6gZU01yF8


Uh...it's an "fully automatic" AR-15...in other words...the M16:

http://www.britannic...53341/M16-rifle
  • 0

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#30 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,009 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 31 January 2013 - 02:04 PM

Ted Cruz .. consider the source .. master of stating the obvious ..
  • 0

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.