Posted on 01/21/2009 9:10:47 AM PST by School of Rational Thought
Gun control in the United States generally has meant some type of supply regulation. Some rules are uncontroversial like usertargeted restrictions that define the untrustworthy and prohibit them from accessing the legitimate supply.
(Excerpt) Read more at lawreview.law.wfu.edu ...
Easy to read and not as long as 55 pages would suggest. Half of those pages in footnote annotation.
bump for later
ditto
Bang
To save everybody a lot of time, here is a direct quote:
“Assume, therefore, that Heller is reversed or explained away. Assume further that the political barriers to sweeping supply controls are overcome. Now imagine gun control in America.”
What we need is Law Professor control.
bttt
I don't see anything "good" about the article. It is still just another attempt to justify eliminating guns from society. The author is an obvious gun-grabber.
-bflr-
Gun control means hitting your target.
Molon Labe.
Some would interpret this as a declaration of war on the people of the United States. If that is what you advocate, it might be interesting.
For later reading.
Thanks. That’s one of the better articles I’ve read on the implementation and its effects, rather than the legislation, of gun control in America. Having said that, the author completely neglects 1) the “Henry Bowman” factor, and 2) the porousness of our borders.
—porous borders here and Europe touched on starting page 844—
Did you guys read the article? The author concludes that attempts to regulate the supply of guns (including registration laws) “cannot be taken seriously” and that those who continue to attempt to do so are “deluded or pandering”:
CONCLUSION
Without a commitment to or capacity for eliminating the
existing inventory of private guns, the supply-side ideal and
regulations based on it cannot be taken seriously. It is best to
acknowledge the blocking power of the remainder and adjust our
gun control regulations and goals to that reality. Policymakers who
continue to press legislation grounded on the supply-side ideal while
disclaiming the goal of prohibition are deluded or pandering.
Shhhhhhh...the Grabbers may lump "claw hammer control" into their scheme if they hear you.
“Thanks. That’s one of the better articles I’ve read on the implementation and its effects, rather than the legislation, of gun control in America. Having said that, the author completely neglects ... 2) the porousness of our borders.”
You seem to have missed section II.A. of the paper, which is entitled “Porous Borders.”
The open disdain for "Uncle Charley" and casual use of terms like:
"As confiscation matures, later generations of potential refuseniks (survivors of the original defiant class, and a new population of otherwise “honest” citizens who have otherwise acquired contraband guns)..."
Is a good prediction of what is in store.
I also note in particular:
"However, if registration is attempted during a temporary period of individual right protection, and then Heller is nullified, things change dramatically. Under that scenario, potentially large numbers of people will comply with registration, trusting that the Constitution bars confiscation."
(If anyone wants me, I'll be downstairs, behind the false bookcase, talking to myself while cleaning my hoard.)
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.