You are right, but a great deal of public policy has been based in racism, sexism, ignorance and lack of concern for constitutional rights. Billions have been wasted on policies that were allegedly based on common sense and life experience. Yes, it is hard to have reliable evidence on many public policy issues. However, the lack of that evidence should weaken the case of those who should have the burden of justifying infringing on constitutional rights (i.e., the government). Breyer's burden dissenting in Heller is no burden. Thanks for the link. Interesting article.
Ray -----Original Message----- From: firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 5:21 PM To: 'firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu' Subject: RE: Volokh: California Court of Appeal Upholds Ban My sense is that a great deal of public policy has been based on (at best) plausible inferences based on life experience, rather than on social science evidence. Certainly that was so before the advent of modern social science tools; but even today, it's very hard to have really reliable evidence on a wide variety of matters, whether related to guns or otherwise. I do think a higher standard should be required when a law substantially burdens a constitutional right; I discuss this in some detail in my UCLA Law Review piece, http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2am.pdf . But it's far from clear to me that a higher standard should be required in the absence of such a substantial burden. Eugene > -----Original Message----- > From: Raymond Kessler [mailto:rkess...@sulross.edu] > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 3:18 PM > To: Volokh, Eugene; firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu > Subject: RE: Volokh: California Court of Appeal Upholds Ban > > To say that something is not implausible is not saying much. Policy should > be based on something more. > What is the evidence that licensed carry holders, in any significant number, > get in disputes, pull their licensed handgun and shoot someone? Of the 35% > who didn't have a conviction, how many had some other state or federal > firearms disqualifying strike against them (e.g. 18 USC sec. 922 g which > includes certain drug addicts, aliens illegally in the U.S., dishonorable > discharge from U.S. Armed forces, certain mentally ill or mentally defective > persons, has a family violence protective order against them, etc.) I have > no idea, and I hope someone researches this issue. What is the evidence of a > casual connection between getting/having a license and using the licensed > weapon to commit a crime? I think you would agree that Law, rights and > policy need to hang on a reed more substantial than mere plausibility or > implausability. Finally, after years of studying these issues, many, > including YT, believe that the gun control controversy, for most people, is > not really about crime. It is a symptom of America's kulturkampf, and the > desire to use the law to punish, demonize and stigmatize certain categories > of people. Unfortunately, many on both the left and right in this country > cannot rise above the culture wars. > Ray > > -----Original Message----- > From: firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu > [mailto:firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 4:34 PM > To: 'firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu' > Subject: RE: Volokh: California Court of Appeal Upholds Ban > > I agree that people with concealed carry licenses have apparently > proven themselves to be quite law-abiding, though that was hardly obvious > when the experiment began. Moreover, according to Felony Defendants in > Large Urban Counties, 2004, 35% of all murderers (and voluntary > manslaughterers) didn't have any prior adult conviction, even a misdemeanor > conviction, though likely some fraction of those had juvenile convictions. > So it is not implausible that guns in the hands of otherwise seemingly > law-abiding citizens (certainly not ones who can be disqualified from > getting concealed carry permits, or keeping a gun at home without a permit) > will indeed be used to murder or commit manslaughter. > > Eugene > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Raymond Kessler [mailto:rkess...@sulross.edu] > > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 2:29 PM > > To: Volokh, Eugene; firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu > > Subject: RE: Volokh: California Court of Appeal Upholds Ban > > > > If the people are law abiding (licensed to carry by the state) what is > there > > to be realistically afraid of? In Texas one does not have to have a felony > > conviction to be denied a license. Lesser offenses can result in denial. > I > > know an individual who was denied a license to carry in Texas because of a > > failing to respond to a ticket about a loud party. I know, because I > helped > > him investigate the situation. A few years later, he was granted a > license. > > If you eliminate all the categories of people under federal law and > relevant > > state law who cannot get a license or are prohibited from possessing, > > receiving, etc. a handgun, there are few really dangerous people left. > Some > > people are just afraid of weapons period (I think it's called > hoplophobia). > > It's the people carrying concealed without a license that one needs to > fear. > > The folks with licenses are generally not the kind of folks who are going > to > > let an argument escalate into a shootout. There are very few, if any > cases > > where a licensed carrier was provoked into committing a crime with the > > licensed weapon. If you have reliable info. On any such cases, please > > provide. Further, in such cases, they may have carried anyway whether > they > > had a license or not. Assume that a person routinely carries a gun > > illegally. They decide to get a license to legalize it. They would carry > > with or without the license. Is there a casual connection between the > > license or licensed carrying and the crime? No! In addition there is a > > difference between a generalized fear of something and using that fear to > > deny persons their legal rights. If fear alone, with no empirical > > demonstration of real potential harm, can justify banning inanimate > objects, > > There will be lots of ordinary objects that are banned. There are lots of > > phobias out there. > > However, I agree that the empirical case for gun control aimed at ordinary > > citizens has not been made. > > Ray > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu > > [mailto:firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, > Eugene > > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 11:44 AM > > To: 'firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu' > > Subject: RE: Volokh: California Court of Appeal Upholds Ban > > > > I'm a supporter of gun rights, but surely there's nothing that odd > > about people being afraid of law abiding citizens with guns (and even more > > so about convicted felons with guns). The case for gun control is on > > balance not, in my view, supported by the facts, but it is surely > plausible. > > It's not ridiculous to worry that the presence of a gun might escalate an > > argument into a shootout, and in fact while the great bulk of homicides > are > > committed by people with some arrest record, many are not committed by > > people with a felony conviction record. > > > > To be sure, other devices, such as alcohol and cars, are used in > > about as many killings of innocent bystanders as are guns. But people are > > also afraid, and rightly so, of misuse of alcohol and cars, and in fact > > there are many regulations -- many plausible, some good, some silly -- of > > the use of both. > > > > Of course, driving a car and drinking alcohol aren't > constitutional > > rights, and having guns is, not just under Heller and the original meaning > > of the Second Amendment, but also under at least 40 state constitutions. > > But that doesn't tell us that much about what constitutes infringement on > > the right. That gun rights can be regulated though not prohibited has > been > > a nearly universal refrain in state court decisions on the right to bear > > arms for the last two centuries. Many have gone way too far in upholding > > even serious burdens on the rights, but it's hard to claim that there's > any > > support in American legal tradition for the proposition that gun rights > (or > > speech rights or freedom from search and seizure or many other rights) are > > absolute, even for law-abiding citizens. So we can't just assume that > > people have a constitutional right to possess some particular kinds of > guns, > > and ask why people are afraid of others' exercising that right. > > > > Eugene > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:firearmsregprof- > > > boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Raymond Kessler > > > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 8:17 AM > > > To: Volokh, Eugene; firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu > > > Subject: RE: Volokh: California Court of Appeal Upholds Ban > > > > > > 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. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
