In addition to being very unrealistic, the ranch sniping hypo is one of those 1 in a 100 million cases that, for better or worse, the law usually doesn't deal with. It is very difficult to write a statute or constitutional provision that can cover every conceivable exercise of a claimed right. Further, Heller seems to be limited to "weapons in common use." .50 cal. Rifles are not in common use. Further the Court assumes that certain types of persons (e.g. convicted felons) could have their rights limited. Is this hypo symptomatic of the "parade of horribles" and scare tactics about the 2nd Amend? See, for example Bogus' article in Syracuse Law review arguing that Heller romanticized insurrection (59 SYLR 253)and Dorf's fear (59 SYRLR 225) that dangerous felons will be allowed to carry concealed weapons on NY city streets. Every time a state enacts a concealed carrying licensing scheme someone claims the streets will soon be running with blood. Why are some people so afraid of law abiding citizens with guns? Why are some people so afraid of other who exercise a constitutional right?
Ray Kessler Prof. of Criminal Justice Sul Ross State Univ. -----Original Message----- From: firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:33 PM To: firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu Subject: RE: Volokh: California Court of Appeal Upholds Ban Hmm -- how realistic is it to expect that one will be sniped at from a distance where a .50 caliber rifle will reach, but other rifles (recall that the state law doesn't keep you from having other rifles) won't? Eugene > -----Original Message----- > From: firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:firearmsregprof- > boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of rufx2 > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:13 PM > To: firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu > Subject: RE: Volokh: California Court of Appeal Upholds Ban > > Eugene- Person or persons sniping at your house from the property line of > your ranch and you can't use a .50 in defense? Wait for them to come closer > and use your Heller-Approved handgun? > {Cf pdf pages 27 & 37} > -----Original Message----- > From: firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu > [mailto:firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of > firearmsregprof-requ...@lists.ucla.edu > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 3:01 PM > To: firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu > Subject: Firearmsregprof Digest, Vol 67, Issue 2 > > ------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [Volokh] Eugene Volokh: California Court of Appeal Upholds > Ban > on .50-Caliber Rifles Against Second Amendment Challenge: > Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 00:19:39 -0400 > From: not...@powerblogs.com > To: vol...@lists.powerblogs.com > ... > I can't speak to the wisdom of a .50-caliber ban, but this seems to be > a sensible interpretation of Heller's test for what "arms" are > protected. Moreover, as I argue in my forthcoming [2]Implementing the > Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Self-Defense article, this is also > consistent with a sensible interpretation of the right to keep and > bear arms in self-defense. In my article, I argue that Heller's > "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes" test > is flawed. But, among other things, I argue that the right to bear > arms for self-defense shouldn't be seen as infringed by restrictions > that don't materially interfere with the right to self-defense; and a > ban on .50-caliber rifles doesn't materially interfere with > self-defense (see PDF pages 12-19 and 48, as well as PDF pages 37-42 > for the discussion of interpreting the scope of "arms" post-Heller). > > This doesn't speak, of course, to the right to keep and bear arms for > other reasons, such as deterrence of government tyranny and the like. > But I leave that questions to others (much as the Court did in > Heller); writing 100+ pages on the right to bear arms in self-defense > is enough for me. > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu > 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. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu 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. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu 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.
