Constitutional protection for devices and activities that can kill people
mschor at suffolk.edu
Fri Apr 10 14:12:19 PDT 2009
I thought the point of Heller is that the policy
implications of a decision (i.e., whether the
decision leads to greater homicides) don't (and
shouldn't) matter; only the words of the 2d
amendment and, of course, it's supposed original
meaning matter. In any case, if the public policy
implications of a constitutional issue matter (a
point I wholeheartedly concur in), then legislatures
have a role to play as well in construing the
Constitution and should be afforded some discretion,
no? I would love for the Court to drop originalism
and to take the policy implications of its decisions
into account but why should its reading of the
empirical evidence trump that of a legislature?
Associate Professor of Law
Suffolk University Law School
120 Tremont St.
Boston, MA 02108
SSRN Webpage http://ssrn.com/author=469730
---- Original message ----
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 14:42:10 -0500
From: "Raymond Kessler" <rkessler at sulross.edu>
Subject: RE: Constitutional protection for devices
and activities that can kill people
To: "'Bob Sheridan'"
<rs at robertsheridan.com>,"'Volokh, Eugene'"
<VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu>
Cc: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>Much of the legal debate on guns and crime is
meaningless if there is no causal connection
between guns and people killing other people.
There is no credible, consistent research evidence
of a causal connection between guns & homicide or
that gun control is effective in reducing
>Prof. of Criminal Justice
>Sul Ross State Univ.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Conlawprof