But there is no need for the court to choose, because even if the Second Amendment is regarded as creating an individual right to own firearms, it is surely not an absolute liberty. It seems obvious that the government can keep people from having particularly dangerous weapons, such as assault rifles, and keep those with criminal records from having guns. Just as free speech has never been regarded as absolute, nor should an individual right to bear arms be seen as precluding all government regulation.No one is arguing that the Second Amendment CREATES any right, Erwin, except for you lying left-wing revisionist subversives trying to derail it with weasel words and deception. In Madison's own words, he was "enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power." Your First Amendment analogy also falls flat because it does not invoke prior restraint. And the purpose of government is to protect rights and property, not control them.
This is what passes for a professor of law these days? Good grief. I wouldn't use your articles to line my birdcage--they might contaminate the guano.
7 comments:
David - I think you're going to see more and more of us calling folks like Chemerinsky on this trickery. We simply won't take it any more...we are ready to be vindicated. Here is my letter:
________________________
27 November 2007
Dear Prof. Chemerinsky:
Hello from a fellow academic, though I study ecology and evolutionary biology - natural law if you will. I too love academic freedom and I am sorry that UC-Irvine retracted their offer of employment. To the extent that you comment on public policy, I am supportive.
But I must take issue with some recent commentary. It regards the Heller case and appeared in Des Moines Register entitled "Second amendment isn't absolute..." Is there any indication whatsoever that the DC District court ruled that gun ownership rights were absolute? Absolutely not! I'm stupefied that you'd even pitch the issue in those terms.
More importantly, regarding the statement (from your article): "...there is no need for the Supreme Court to face that divisive question [individual right or not] because it should hold that even if there is such a right, the government can adopt reasonable regulations of firearms." I could hardly believe you wrote that! Legislative powers (reasonable regulations) necessarily are limited when they violate the rights of people, and that is EXACTLY what's at issue here. You seem to be saying that the people's rights don't matter and that legislation can trump them. There is indeed very good reason for the SCOTUS to hear this case, to define the right protected by the 2A, and correct the current circuit split. The second amendment is no more a "puzzle" than certain people have contorted it to be...and I suspect you know that to be true.
In fact, your article reminded me of the "bet hedging" that was done in the State's (including my AG Madigan) amicus curiae at the petition stage of Heller. They loaded their brief with language such as: "the Second Amendment permits reasonable regulation of firearms to protect public safety and does not guarantee individuals the absolute right to own the weapons of their choice" (emphasis mine). Of course there is no absolute right...talk about creative argument!
Your mention of "absolute" is similar to the State's brief, and both are as disingenuous as the question DC posed to the Supreme Court, which omitted the fact that their "allowed" rifles and shotguns were not functional arms, and that the court below had ruled their ordinance as illegal. The Supreme Court wisely re-wrote the question to reflect that the DC ban on functional long guns was indeed an issue here.
For your information I've attached my letter to Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, a statement by Mike Cox, Michigan Attorney General, and for reference, the State's amicus brief.
Best regards,
Good letter, garandfan. As you see, I took a decidely more bare-knuckles approach. I remember many years ago some my GunTruths co-founders had a talk radio program on the old KIEV in Los Angeles and he was a guest--and the deference they treated him with due to his position and credentials rankled me, because nothing but cultured crap was spewing from his cultured mouth. To me, a fraud is a fraud, a charlatan a charlatan, and a commie pinko bastard an enemy of humanity, and deserves to be treated as such, regardless of social trappings or scholastic credibility.
We need both approaches, mind you, yours to appeal on a level of intellectual integrity, and mine to just kick him in the nuts so me 'n my pals can laugh at him.
The sad thing about this, is that Prof. Chemerinsky is an author. Our Constitutional law class used his supplement, as did our 1st Amendment law class.
The Ethics CD's I used to study for the MPRE (Ethics exam) were produced by him.
I absolutely hated reading his book.
Anyone that can read "Congress shall make now law" (1st Amendment), and interpret a "reasonable restriction" on it, shouldn't be an attorney, much less a professor.
I think it is important to reinforce the point that the BoR does not grant rights. Rather it restricts the legislative ability of Congress. Hence the use of phrases like "Congress shall make no law..." and "...shall not be infringed." You don't need to be a legal scholar to understand who is being regulated here.
Re: "....you lying left-wing revisionist subversives trying to derail it with weasel words and deception.... I wouldn't use your articles to line my birdcage...."
Golly, David, you really don't need to sugar coat your words so much. Stop beating around the bush. Just come out and say what you mean.
Erwin's a regular on the Hugh Hewitt Show with John Eastman, Dean of the Chapman University School of Law. The Dean regularly takes Erwin to school, but Erwin always proves himself to be the class dunce, regardless of the Constitutional issue under discussion. I think I can count the number of times they've agreed on the fingers of one hand, and the number of time's Erwin's been right with one finger.
Erwin must have misplaced his glasses when he read the Second Amendment. It says, "shall not be infringed", but he seems to think it says, "shall be infringed".
It's a prohibition against restriction, not a license to do so.
Post a Comment