Steve is an historian first and a "gunny" a distant second. IMHO, he also doesn't see the need for appellate lawyers to be political at times. Gun cases are often lost (a la Miller) because the counsel neglects to introduce or at least proffer the necessary factual context. The judge is always going to test the suggested rule against various fact patterns dreamed up in his or her mind. You can't stop that but you can present the best context in which to have the dreaming up occur. Brandies brief, anyone? At least the amici did that in both Heller I and McDonald. They'll be needed even more when this case is appealed. [quote]Halbrook Faulted in Second Heller Suit: …Stephen P. Halbrook, the attorney who filed this suit against the District, correctly argued that gun ownership for the purpose of self-defense is a fundamental right. Such rights compel the courts to apply a "strict scrutiny" to restrictive laws to ensure that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest. Gun control advocates insist that public safety is just such an interest, but Mr. Halbrook declined to cite the direct empirical evidence needed to establish a record for higher courts on whether gun control reduces crime. Under strict scrutiny, such laws must be struck down unless the District can show that gun control is essential to reducing crime rates. Mr. Halbrook's reluctance to cite the empirical evidence explicitly linking guns and crime is unfortunate because gun control laws have demonstrably failed to yield any of the benefits promised. Take the regulations on which Judge Urbina ruled. The evidence shows that rules increasing the cost and burdens of handgun ownership make crime more likely. Books such as "The Bias Against Guns" and "More Guns, Less Crime" show that gunlocks, assault-weapon bans and registration rules do not lower crime rates and might instead increase them… Failing to take advantage of this powerful evidentiary record weakens the gun rights case in the event that a higher court uses a "balancing test" to weigh the arguments. The situation is even more precarious as the Obama administration continues to pack the appellate courts with anti-gun judges who think like Judge Urbina, a Clinton appointee. In many ways, the upcoming Senate elections could be just as important to preserving the Second Amendment as they will be about health care.[/quote]
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/30/federal-judge-goes-after-gun-owners/ ******************************************************************* Professor Joseph Olson, J.D., LL.M. o- 651-523-2142 Hamline University School of Law (MS-D2037) f- 651-523-2236 St. Paul, MN 55113-1235 c- 612-865-7956 jol...@gw.hamline.edu http://law.hamline.edu/node/784
_______________________________________________ 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.
