-----Original Message----- From: "Clayton E. Cramer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Aug 14, 2005 5:50 PM To: Robert Woolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Firearmsregprof <[email protected]> Subject: Re: fair summary?
Robert Woolley wrote: [snip] >I *think* it's a fair statement. But after writing it, it struck me what a >remarkable thing that is, if it's true. Hard to imagine so many wildly >different versions of a complex statutory system being enacted in 20 or so >states (I'm excluding the pre-Florida states), with none of them ever being >repealed legislatively or serious weakened or defeated (long-term) >judicially. It's really quite astonishing, especially given the background >of 100 years of progressively shrinking personal liberties in nearly every >other aspect of American life. It's gonna be pretty hard to challenge a law which liberalizes a criminal prohibition. There's the problem of standing to sue (who is directly harmed, plus the general doctrine that no one has standing to see someone else prosecuted). And it's hard to see where liberalizing a restriction (as opposed to enacting a restriction) can run afoul of a constitution. The few challenges that were brought were on technical points (grouping the liberalization with other enactments, in violation of a state prohibition on combining multiple subjects in one bill, or requiring localities to issue permits w/o providing funding, in violation of other requirement). I remember reading the decision on the first, and being bemused that the court found a way, while striking the liberalization because it was combined with other enactments, to strike only the liberalization while leaving all else intact. The reason for the constitutional prohibition was to preclude "log rolling" -- combining a bunch of subjects, each of which might have only minority support in the legislature, so that a majority would accept the package. If that's the purpose, then how can one provision be stricken and the others upheld? The vote was for a package, and the other provisions are as likely to have gone from minority to majority vote by picking up votes for the liberalization, as the liberalization was to have gone from minority to majority by picking up votes from them. Oh, well, nobody every said gun issues found a level playing field in court. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
