Legal straw man

Since Tom is a legal purchaser in his state, this is an example of a perfectly legal straw man purchase. So there is anti-gun Big Lie number #3, that all straw man purchases are illegal. Methinks there is an opportunity here for an OAQ (occasionally asked questions, or oak): anti-gun Big Lies

Re: Legal straw man

*What you describe is NOT a strawman purchase at all as top anyone.* The strawman refers to using another person to *deceive* the dealer and THE GOVERNMENT by making the fake appear as the transferee to the dealer and to the government so that the NICS check is run on the fakeer and the paperwork

Re: Legal straw man

Thanks, Professor. That was kind of what I meant. "Strawman" in the ATF context has taken on a different meaning than the one we read about in Contracts 101.***GRJ***-Original Message- From: "Olson, Joseph E." Sent: May 8, 2013 2:14 PM To: Greg Jacobs

New approach

The Value of Life: Constitutional Limits on Citizens’ Use of Deadly Forcehttp://hq.ssrn.com/Journals/RedirectClick.cfm?url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2256035partid=47512did=171898eid=188278554 [image: Free Download] George Mason Law Review, Vol. 21,

Re: New approach

The amazing thing is that the George Mason L. Rev. accepted it. This is another of his recent papers: Do Androids Dream?': Personhood and Intelligent Artifacts http://ssrn.com/abstract=1725983 On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 7:58 PM, C D Tavares c...@libertyhaven.com wrote: The entire paper seems to

RE: New approach

Ah, but a bill of attainder is a legal punishment for a crime -- a denial of life, liberty, or property without due process. If a statute that says It's OK to kill John Doe is a bill of attainder, that's because the withdrawal of protection against murder is a government action that

Re: New approach

But, IIRC, in every state some act reasonably perceived as criminal (usually assault) by the decedent is required before self-defense becomes an option. The initiating CHOICE is that of the decedent, not the defending victim. That choice is the equivalent of due process. The decedent is in

RE: New approach

I'm not sure what authority there is for the proposition that private choice is the equivalent of due process. For instance, I don't think that a rule that says a person can kill anyone who he chooses to commit a particular crime can then be killed at will by anyone - i.e., the

Re: New approach

I think Tavares has it right about attainder since the Constitution forbids it, it cannot be a legal punishment for a crime.  Moreover, he is wright about trying to constrain actions of individuals with the Constitution.  Except for treason, no crime is defined for any individual and no penalty

One more thought about positive and negative rights

Here's one more thought that might be helpful here: The Bill of Rights, including the clause barring deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process, wasn't enacted as some self-contained philosophical framework; it was enacted against a backdrop of English law

Re: New approach

The decedent can't be killed by anyone. He can only be killed by the person that the decedent's choice put in danger of (reasonably perceived or actual) imminent danger of death or GBH. The decedent made a bad choice which caused the entire chain of events. He had his due process when he made

RE: New approach

But the hypothetical I gave is only an unconstitutional legal punishment for a crime if withdrawal of legal protection counts as punishment that requires due process. And that's the article's claim: That withdrawal of legal protection in certain cases requires due process.

Re: New approach

On May 8, 2013, at 10:22 PM, Volokh, Eugene vol...@law.ucla.edu wrote: Rather, the difference is captured in the second paragraph below, and it has come into American law as a matter of long-standing tradition, a backdrop against which the Constitution was enacted and should

Re: New approach

Under our Constitution issuing a bill of attainder is a crime in the form of a legislative act. Similarly, your hypotheticals are obvious illegal acts if offered by Congress, being denials of due process. I suspect the real issue is our government's claim to lawfully kill people suspected of