Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Dave Kopel: The “Pro-Gun” Provisions of Manchin-Toomey, a Bonanza of Gun Control

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,158

    Dave Kopel: The “Pro-Gun” Provisions of Manchin-Toomey, a Bonanza of Gun Control

    The Toomey-Manchin Amendment which may be offered as soon as Tuesday to Senator Reid’s gun control bill are billed as a “compromise” which contain a variety of provisions for gun control, and other provisions to enhance gun rights. Some of the latter, however, are not what they seem. They are badly miswritten, and are in fact major advancements for gun control. In particular:

    1. The provision which claims to outlaw national gun registration in fact authorizes a national gun registry.

    2. The provision which is supposed to strengthen existing federal law protecting the interstate transportation of personal firearms in fact cripples that protection.
    http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/15/the...f-gun-control/

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    This article illustrates a concept that I will coin and call eye95's razor:

    "The passage of new laws will never increase the ability of the People to exercise their Rights."

    At best, they will accomplish nothing in this regard. At worst, they will create new pitfalls, new opportunities to turn the law-abiding into criminals.

  3. #3
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    I wonder who's right, Gottlieb or Kopel. Due to lack of consensus, I'll err on the side of safety and go with Kopel. Hopefully, national reciprocity can get tacked on and give the entire bill a fiery death. And to think all of this is because a mongoloid supposedly murdered 20 kids.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  4. #4
    Regular Member rushcreek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs. CO
    Posts
    924
    This is a good example of getting caught up in a stampede of " DO SOMETHING ! " in response to a tragedy.

    The Devil is in the details - always.

    Thank you again Dave Kopel !

    With Chucky Schumer's fingerprints on this amendment - I should have known better than to buy into this charade.

    We already have one very good "gun rights" law - the 2nd Amendment.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    This article illustrates a concept that I will coin and call eye95's razor:

    "The passage of new laws will never increase the ability of the People to exercise their Rights."

    At best, they will accomplish nothing in this regard. At worst, they will create new pitfalls, new opportunities to turn the law-abiding into criminals.
    Well, I'm certainly not going to give you credit just for the phraseology (the idea is nothing new), but I do agree completely.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    I wonder who's right, Gottlieb or Kopel.
    Right or wrong, Gottlieb has a vested interest.

    Even if the parts of the bill that Gottlieb wrote are 100% pro-2A, that doesn't mean the bill is good overall.

  7. #7
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    This article illustrates a concept that I will coin and call eye95's razor:

    "The passage of new laws will never increase the ability of the People to exercise their Rights."

    At best, they will accomplish nothing in this regard. At worst, they will create new pitfalls, new opportunities to turn the law-abiding into criminals.
    Like saying CC laws are not unconstitutional?...
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  8. #8
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    Right or wrong, Gottlieb has a vested interest.

    Even if the parts of the bill that Gottlieb wrote are 100% pro-2A, that doesn't mean the bill is good overall.
    Gotta be careful when discussing Gottlieb here.

    A compromise is always a loss.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  9. #9
    Regular Member rushcreek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs. CO
    Posts
    924
    In keeping wih EYE 95's "Razor" rule - A POP-QUIZ :

    Which prohibition is more emphatic and less ambiguous?

    1A STATES that "Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW.."


    OR


    2A STATES that the people's RTKBA "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

    ???????????????????

    ANSWER: Both PROHIBITIONS are equally emphatic and unambiguous.

    Although the 1A PROHIBITION does not directly address the executive, or judiciary the KEY term is still " NO LAW " which effectively limits both.

    An argument could perhaps be made that Constitutional ALLOWANCE exists for laws truly EXPANDING the 2a right but in order to "expand" the 2A right one must presume that LIMITS upon it actually exist.

    Point is - when we start seeing as many Laws passed in respect to the 1A rights as laws infringing upon the 2A right then perhaps Diane Feinstein/ Schumer pet gun-control measures will "deserve a vote".
    Last edited by rushcreek2; 04-17-2013 at 11:32 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •