Send Firearmsregprof mailing list submissions to
firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
firearmsregprof-requ...@lists.ucla.edu
You can reach the person managing the list at
firearmsregprof-ow...@lists.ucla.edu
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Firearmsregprof digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Background on Heller II (Joseph E. Olson)
2. Re: Background on Heller II (prot...@aol.com)
3. Re: Background on Heller II (Joseph E. Olson)
4. RE: Background on Heller II (Raymond Kessler)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:00:55 -0500
From: "Joseph E. Olson" <jol...@gw.hamline.edu>
To: "List Firearms Reg" <firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Background on Heller II
Message-ID: <4bb21227020000f300046...@ely.hamline.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/firearmsregprof/attachments/20100330/527bfe04/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:45:16 EDT
From: prot...@aol.com
To: jol...@gw.hamline.edu, firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Background on Heller II
Message-ID: <291a6.6287988b.38e3b...@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Justice Scalia?s majority opinion in Heller took a categorical approach and
held the ban to be unconstitutional as a matter of law, without regard to
any statistics about the effectiveness of ?gun laws.? It was Breyer?s
dissent that advocates the battle of statistics in which the government always
wins.
See our summary judgment briefs, particularly Reply to DC Opposition at
4-6, found at _http://stephenhalbrook.com/_ (http://stephenhalbrook.com/) .
Statistics are appropriate on whether firearm types are in ?common use,?
and we put on evidence that 2 million AR15s have been produced for the
civilian market. But it was enough for the court that a committee report
alleged ?assault weapons? are not in common use to make that
finding. That does
not even pass the rational basis test.
Stephen P. Halbrook
Attorney at Law
3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 403
Fairfax, VA 22030
Tel. (703) 352-7276
Fax (703) 359-0938
Email: prot...@aol.com
Website: _www.stephenhalbrook.com_ (http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/)
In a message dated 3/30/2010 4:01:48 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
jol...@gw.hamline.edu writes:
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-gu
n-owners/_
(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_ (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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/firearmsregprof/attachments/20100330/396b6fb9/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:05:33 -0500
From: "Joseph E. Olson" <jol...@gw.hamline.edu>
To: <firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Background on Heller II
Message-ID: <4bb2214d.07a3.00f...@gw.hamline.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
In gun cases, rationality has always been a difficult hurdle for judges,
state or federal. Steve, good luck in the appeal. Joe
Professor Joseph Olson, J.D., LL.M. o- 651-523-2142
Hamline University School of Law f- 651-523-2236
St. Paul, MN 55113-1235 c- 612-865-7956
jol...@gw.hamline.edu
<prot...@aol.com> 3/30/2010 3:45 PM >>>
Statistics are appropriate on whether firearm types are in ?common use,?
and we put on evidence that 2 million AR15s have been produced for the
civilian market. But it was enough for the court that a committee
report alleged ?assault weapons? are not in common use to make that
finding. That does not even pass the rational basis test.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/firearmsregprof/attachments/20100330/a3dbb8e9/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:45:06 -0500
From: "Raymond Kessler" <rkess...@sulross.edu>
To: <prot...@aol.com>, <jol...@gw.hamline.edu>,
<firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: RE: Background on Heller II
Message-ID:
<!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAOTWE6v1X/nggw09vhrmwkhcgaaaeaaaapudlpuv59bptu7ay+mvwyibaaaaa...@sulross.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Velly intellesting! I know there is some data in the Heller 2
pleadings, but does anyone have a cite or link to a comprehensive,
detailed, one-stop source on the numbers and specific types of
firearms kept. by Americans?
Thanks,
Ray Kessler
Prof. of Criminal Justice
Sul Ross State Univ.
From: firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of
prot...@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 3:45 PM
To: jol...@gw.hamline.edu; firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Background on Heller II
Justice Scalia?s majority opinion in Heller took a categorical
approach and held the ban to be unconstitutional as a matter of law,
without regard to any statistics about the effectiveness of ?gun
laws.? It was Breyer?s dissent that advocates the battle of
statistics in which the government always wins.
See our summary judgment briefs, particularly Reply to DC Opposition
at 4-6, found at http://stephenhalbrook.com/.
Statistics are appropriate on whether firearm types are in ?common
use,? and we put on evidence that 2 million AR15s have been produced
for the civilian market. But it was enough for the court that a
committee report alleged ?assault weapons? are not in common use to
make that finding. That does not even pass the rational basis test.
Stephen P. Halbrook
Attorney at Law
3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 403
Fairfax, VA 22030
Tel. (703) 352-7276
Fax (703) 359-0938
Email: prot...@aol.com
Website: www.stephenhalbrook.com <http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/>
In a message dated 3/30/2010 4:01:48 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
jol...@gw.hamline.edu writes:
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. T!
he 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/firearmsregprof/attachments/20100330/0d568b99/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Firearmsregprof mailing list
Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu
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.
End of Firearmsregprof Digest, Vol 76, Issue 6
**********************************************
_______________________________________________
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.
