Posted on 11/03/2017 7:01:34 AM PDT by rktman
Yesterday, two gun control-advocating UCLA professors penned an OpEd in the Washington Post detailing how the Supreme Court could rule on the Second Amendment without actually taking up a case on gun rights. According to social welfare professor Mark S. Kaplan and law professor Adam Winkler, the Supreme Court could tackle "gun violence" by limiting gerrymandering, the practice of drawing district lines in favor of the party in control.
The justices are being asked to decide if this practice of manipulating district lines to guarantee one party a disproportionate number of seats unconstitutionally dilutes the other party’s supporters’ right to vote.
The professors believe the reason "significant new gun laws" haven't be enacted in recent years is because gerrymandering has allowed the GOP to stay in power.
They also believe the National Rifle Association's power stems from gerrymandering.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Gerrymandering is the reason we have the CBC.
Proving that UCLA professors have nothing else to do but smoke weed and indulge in wishful thinking.
Gerrymandering has allowed the left to stay in power. I am not sure what the author is trying to say here. Even fewer districts would be held by Democrats without it. Not only that, but the fact that likely fewer than 1 percent of legal gun owners murder people says something.
And Looie Goo-Tee-Air-Eez
See map of Ill-4
> Gerrymandering is the reason we have the CBC.
Yep. Gerrymandering is “good” when it allows “the right politician” to be elected by creating the right minority districts. “Bad” when it does something else.
The hard part (for dems) is that “good” gerrymandering to guarantee a minority is elected, creates “bad” districts where fewer minorities can vote. They want to sue about the “bad” districts without giving up the “good” districts. The math doesn’t work (as with so many D ideas).
“Professors” - the least credible people in America. Please ignore them everyone.
Any rational means of drawing lines leaves most congressional districts red. Dividing up urban areas to spread their influence is anti-conservative and not the other way around.
I think a state should be divided in the most geographically compact areas that contain about 650000 people. A computer driven cluster program would be more than fair.
Stopped reading right there.
Without Gerrymandering, I wonder how much of the Congressional Black Caucus would survive....
I’m not convinced. In many states there are so called non partisan commissions which determine district voting lines such as Arizona for example.
In Arizona there are only perfunctory gun control laws.
Recall also that after the Mandalay Bay massacre, the interests in gun ownership, and subsequent gun sales, went up, not down. Sharing violence across congressional districts will only make gun ownership go up, not down.
I bought 200 shares of AOBC (Smith and Wesson) today.
Do not the Dems use that type of political practice?
Yup. Happened in FL a couple of times. Think Col. West.
Fine, start with Gutierrez’ district.
Gerrymandering has helped turn Colorado purple.
Nobody worried about my rights and representation when I was gerrymandered into some dumblecrat’s district after decades spent in another....nobody was offering ways to adress it then...
They are not concerned with rights at all...just the fact that they are not the ones in power...if they steal it back, they will not give two sh-ts about your rights.
Shall not be infringed. Next topic.
I am reminded of the Trump election map and the map of gun violence. Remove gerrymandering and Trump has 83% of country and something like 95% of county is gun violence free. Imagine a congress made up of like minded people representing the majority.
I once voted in the infamous MC District 12
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.