quote:

Originally by Jeffrey Sachs: Semiautomatic weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment. The federal government and the states can outlaw them, a point underscored by none other than the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who emphasized that the Second Amendment protects gun ownership of the types of arms that were "in common use" in 1791, when the Second Amendment was adopted.

quote:

Originally by Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in Heller: Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 849, 117 S.Ct. 2329, 138 L.Ed.2d 874 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 35–36, 121 S.Ct. 2038, 150 L.Ed.2d 94 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, **2792 prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 582

quote:

The federal government banned semiautomatic weapons for 10 years between 1994 and 2004, and deaths from mass shootings fell. It's a no-brainer to do so again, and fast.

quote:

It's a good bet that the families of the Las Vegas victims will eventually file a class-action suit suing the gun industry for its reckless disregard. The families can never recover their awful loss, but they could yet save the lives of countless others by bringing these awful companies to justice. Nothing should exonerate gun manufacturers from their responsibility in making and marketing such instruments of needless death.

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
And btw, with this logic, I assume there are no objections if I walked around with a sword / katana, right?

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
How does someone like that get to be a law professor?

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
He isn't stupid. He knows what he says isn't strictly accurate, but that will not stand in the way of his advancement of his political agenda.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
He isn't stupid. He knows what he says isn't strictly accurate, but that will not stand in the way of his advancement of his political agenda.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
He isn't stupid. He knows what he says isn't strictly accurate, but that will not stand in the way of his advancement of his political agenda.

Yup, these leftists are just pandering to the uninformed.

quote:

Originally posted by LDD:

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
How does someone like that get to be a law professor?

He's not a law professor. He's director of Columbia's "Center for Sustainable Development."

quote:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

quote:

Originally posted by LDD:
He's not a law professor. He's director of Columbia's "Center for Sustainable Development."

He's so far out of his "sustainable development" wheelhouse that he's walking the plank--or keelhauling himself.

quote:

Originally posted by Icabod:
He starts saying that semi automatic weapons aren't protected. To do this he cites a 4th Circuit Court decision.
https://www.reuters.com/articl...ircuit-idUSKBN1612PU

However, this was about military weapons. "one of the big arguments by plaintiffs who challenged Maryland’s ban – and by the four 4th Circuit judges who dissented from the en banc opinion – was that semi-automatic weapons, otherwise known as “modern sporting rifles,” are among the most popular guns on the market, with 8 million of them circulating in the U.S. as of 2013."

"Judge Traxler said that millions of law-abiding Americans own semi-automatic weapons for lawful purposes, including the defense of their homes, so the guns are squarely within the Second Amendment. The judge – who had written the Kolbe panel opinion now replaced by the en banc decision – also reiterated his conclusion that Maryland’s law is subject to strict scrutiny."

The "strict scrutiny" is normally a death kneel for a case.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
He isn't stupid. He knows what he says isn't strictly accurate, but that will not stand in the way of his advancement of his political agenda.