Hmm -- how realistic is it to expect that one will be sniped at from a
distance where a .50 caliber rifle will reach, but other rifles (recall that
the state law doesn't keep you from having other rifles) won't?
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:firearmsregprof-
> [email protected]] On Behalf Of rufx2
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:13 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Volokh: California Court of Appeal Upholds Ban
>
> Eugene- Person or persons sniping at your house from the property line of
> your ranch and you can't use a .50 in defense? Wait for them to come closer
> and use your Heller-Approved handgun?
> {Cf pdf pages 27 & 37}
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> [email protected]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 3:01 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Firearmsregprof Digest, Vol 67, Issue 2
>
> ------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [Volokh] Eugene Volokh: California Court of Appeal Upholds
> Ban
> on .50-Caliber Rifles Against Second Amendment Challenge:
> Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 00:19:39 -0400
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> ...
> I can't speak to the wisdom of a .50-caliber ban, but this seems to be
> a sensible interpretation of Heller's test for what "arms" are
> protected. Moreover, as I argue in my forthcoming [2]Implementing the
> Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Self-Defense article, this is also
> consistent with a sensible interpretation of the right to keep and
> bear arms in self-defense. In my article, I argue that Heller's
> "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes" test
> is flawed. But, among other things, I argue that the right to bear
> arms for self-defense shouldn't be seen as infringed by restrictions
> that don't materially interfere with the right to self-defense; and a
> ban on .50-caliber rifles doesn't materially interfere with
> self-defense (see PDF pages 12-19 and 48, as well as PDF pages 37-42
> for the discussion of interpreting the scope of "arms" post-Heller).
>
> This doesn't speak, of course, to the right to keep and bear arms for
> other reasons, such as deterrence of government tyranny and the like.
> But I leave that questions to others (much as the Court did in
> Heller); writing 100+ pages on the right to bear arms in self-defense
> is enough for me.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
_______________________________________________
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.
