On 8/24/05 4:19 PM, "Guy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmmmm. I believe you are on the right track. Which Googling, I found the
> current proposition and this:
>
> http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Gorovitz1.htm
Hmmm. Well, he gets the facts of the history basically correct. And he may
even be right about the degree to which courts would allow local
regulations, because of the bizarre, Swiss-cheese nature of CA preemption.
But his general carefulness as a scholar is suggested by his mention of
"plastic" guns (p. 422). And his dopeyheadness is strongly suggested by this
gem:
"Like other public health problems, the firearm injury epidemic demands
local action to reduce the incidence of firearm-related injury and death....
Short of a complete ban on the possession and use of firearms, particularly
handguns, no single intervention will end the epidemic."
In other words, he's saying that a complete ban on possession and use of
firearms would "end" the "epidemic" of "firearm-related injury and death."
Just like the complete ban on possession and use of, say, heroin has ended
the epidemic of illness, injury, addiction, and side effects of its use, I'm
sure.
--
Bob Woolley
St. Paul, MN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the
black flag, and begin slitting throats."
--H. L. Mencken
_______________________________________________
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.
