Assault weapons are no more useful for self-defense than are many other handguns, rifles, and shotguns that aren’t prohibited by assault weapons bans. Assault weapons bans might well be pointless, and might offend gun owners who want the freedom to choose precisely what sorts of guns they own. But this need not make assault weapons bans unconstitutional, if the courts focus on whether the law substantially burdens self-defense. [More]Which makes me wonder why this is an approach you recommend, Professor.
It also makes me wonder about your qualifications to define tactical situations a citizen might find himself in, why you purposely put off discussing the tyranny-resisting potential enabled by the Second Amendment and avoid exploring founding intent.
So I can listen to you, or I can listen to, say, Mr. Coxe:
The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. What clause in the state or federal constitution hath given away that important right.... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the foederal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.Freedom is much too important to leave to law professors. Even ones generally recognized as being on "our" side.
"Which makes me wonder why this is an approach you recommend, Professor."-david
ReplyDeleteThis approach is all that Heller supposedly legitimized "self defense in the home". It left all other uses of the second subject to "reasonable restrictions", and nowhere did it touch on the real purpose of the second.
We will find all sorts of people agreeing to meet in the middle as defined by Heller, which is a dead loss for our side. The opposition will use it to gull our less intelligent brethren, even law professors, into believing they are following the constitution by allowing "self defense in the home" and either licensing or prohibiting arms elsewhere as part of "reasonable restrictions".
This particular law professor just wants to be in front of the parade if he can just figure out where it will turn.
Douglas MacArthur applauded the M1. George S. Patton, Jr. proclaimed it, "the greatest single battle implement ever devised by man."
ReplyDeleteWhat is self-defense with a gun if not a battle situation?
Remember the adage about a pistol being a too to use to fight one's way to his rifle?
There are many self-defense situations in which a semi or full-auto rifle is the best tool. If not, why do the police and military use them?
I'm getting a little tired of "helpful" experts from "our side" supplying ammunition for the anti-self defense hoplophobes.
Thanks a lot, professor. You can now hang with the likes Gun World editor Jan Libourel. Heck, maybe the two of you can conspire on an article that really gives the antis some fresh fodder.
With friends like these...