The same column appeared in my local paper today: http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/columns/story/794945.html
I think he misdescribes the Miller decision, is misleading in implying that there are no prohibitions regarding "assault rifles" (by the accepted military usage these are NFA weapons) and ownership of guns by criminals (as if there were no laws regarding ownership by felons.) He also is very sanguine about limitations on a right, "Guns are simply a form of property. The government should have the same ability to regulate firearms as other property." As far as limitations on a right, I agree with him that "Just as free speech has never been regarded as absolute, nor should an individual right to bear arms be seen as precluding all government regulation." But then he says, "government has a legitimate interest in discouraging gun violence, and prohibiting ownership of guns is a reasonable way to attain the goal." The (lack of) logic floors me - if all regulations aren't precluded, then a total ban is an ok regulation. (Or do I misunderstand him?) Would he accept the same conclusion for 1st Amendment rights? --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.
