FW: Changing circumstances and firearms lethality

[Steven Jamar]

No.  Heller may not be right on history and textual interpretation, but it
is no Dred Scot.  Not even a Plessy or Lochner.  I think it is likely not be
overturned at all by any set of judges.  Instead we will see the Court
(including the Heller majority) allow substantial state and federal
regulation short of confiscation.
Steve

On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Calvin Johnson <CJohnson at law.utexas.edu>wrote:

>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Calvin Johnson
> *Sent:* Sun 4/19/2009 11:36 AM
> *To:* jon.roland at constitution.org; Nelson Lund; Sanford Levinson
> *Cc:* Michael Zimmer; Rosenthal, Lawrence; Robert Sheridan; Janet
> Alexander; Volokh, Eugene; CONLAWPROF at LISTSERV.UCLA.EDU
> *Subject:* RE: Changing circumstances and firearms lethality
>
>  keep the function within support of the state national guard.   The
> original wording is filled with ties to militia.  "A well regulated
> militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a
> free State, the right of the People to keep and *bear* *arms* shall not be
> infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of *bearing* *arms*, shall be
> compelled to render military service in person"  The last clause was
> dropped because 'while I have no objection if limited to Quakers, all men
> should be subject to service beyond that.'   The nature of the
> technology supported the assumption that these were mass weapons, like
> pikes,effective only within a well ordered troop.  In updating it is
> important that the original social context not be lost.  This is like a jury
> duty, a duty to the community, for the benefit of the state, and not for the
> benefit of loonies and loners against the community.
>      I am a very conservative soul.  You should not consider that the loom
> of history can be ripped up and rewoven every morning.  The social
> interpretation of bear arms was stare decisis for 220years.  The dissent in
> Heller is right and we will return to it, as soon as we have less than 7 of
> 9 justices appointed by Republican presidnets.  This is our Dred Scott.  And
> indeed if we can disarm, we can increase the security of us all, and break
> the vicious cycle of the Nash Equilibrium
>
>
-- 
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law
Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice
(IIPSJ) Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20090419/9358ae5f/attachment.htm>