Dean writes: >Erwin Chemerinsky's essay brings some valid points to the table for >debate.
Also IMHO some invalid ones. (Jon covered some, I'll make a minor point.) >I'm not so vain as to think there are no opinions other than >mine that hold a logical position. My disagreement is with his logic (in addition to his opinions.) > ... > By Erwin Chemerinsky > Wednesday, March 14, 2007; Page A15 > ... > Each side of the debate marshals impressive historical arguments about > what "militia" and "keep and bear arms" meant in the late 18th > century. In the past few years, two other federal courts of appeals > exhaustively reviewed this history, and one determined that the > Framers intended the individual rights approach, while the other read > history as supporting the collective rights approach. I agree with Jon about the lack of "impressive historical arguments" supporting the collective rights approach. Instead I see a group of arguments about such things as militia=National Guard (which didn't exist when the BoR was written/ratified and other revisionist history. > The assumption in this debate, and one that the D.C. Circuit followed > Friday, is that gun control laws are unconstitutional if the > individual rights approach is followed. Who said that *all* gun control laws are unconstitutional if the individual rights approach is followed? Chemerinsky is saying that a ban and any gun control law are the same. > This assumption, though, has > no basis in constitutional law. No rights are absolute. ... Straw man! Arguing against a position that hasn't been taken. So I fault Chemerinsky for these two logical fallacies. --henry schaffer > ... _______________________________________________ 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.
