Some people just don't get it. Here are a couple of excerpts from a report of Mayor Fenty's reaction to Heller. (HT: John Lott)
Second, automatic and semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal and may not be registered
...although the Court struck the safe storage provision on the ground that it was too broadly written, firearms at home should be kept either unloaded and disassembled or else locked except for use in self-defense in emergencies
Now Scalia's opinion:
We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.
By far, the most common self-defense weapon is the semi-automatic handgun. Even Hollywood gets it--the last appearance of a revolver was Clint Eastwood's/Dirty Harry's .44Mag.
And here, Scalia again:
we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.
So the Mayor is engaging in double-speak. He suggests that the guns be kept "locked" or "dis-assembled," except for use in self-defense. Unless the Mayor contemplates that each lawful gun-owner in DC will have a small armory available, (thus many could be kept locked/dis-assembled, but one could be ready for "immediate self-defense") his counsel is deficient.
And his statement on semi-automatics? That's another lawsuit unless he claims to have "mis-spoken."
"By far, the most common self-defense weapon is the semi-automatic handgun. Even Hollywood gets it--the last appearance of a revolver was Clint Eastwood's/Dirty Harry's .44Mag."
ReplyDeleteExcept for the fact that a revolver is not a semi-automatic.
You claim a law degree and are unable to read plain text?
ReplyDeleteObviously, you got your degree from the Justice Stevens/Shirley Abrahamson school of law.
The POINT is EXACTLY that the Eastwood weapon is a revolver.
Get back to your briefs.
You're right. I misread your statement and gave it more credit that it deserved. In actuality, your statement is now more inaccurate than I had initially thought.
ReplyDeleteSurely you don't believe that "the he last appearance of a revolver was Clint Eastwood's/Dirty Harry's .44Mag." Or, you haven't gotten out to see a movie since 1971.
But since you want to discuss my law school: "Obviously," I'm more from the Roggansack and Prosser school of law since I believe that judicially created doctrines should be used to overturn a century of case law to legalize fraud.
Check it out, it's called the economic loss doctrine. Then tell me that "conservatives" on the Wisconsin Supreme Court are not judicial activists.
Let's go from the top.
ReplyDeleteThe semiautomatic is, by far, the leading weapon for self-defense by sales volume.
The revolver is NOT. There is only one 'leader.'
Therefore, Fendry's statment: "Second, automatic and semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal and may not be registered" flies in the face of Scalia's explicit language about "of the kind in common use at the time."
The semiauto is most certainly "in common use" at this time. It is more "common" than revolvers for self-defense.
Fendry's wrong.
By the way, he also refers to ANY semiauto with the capability of taking a magazine with more than 12 rounds as "automatic."
So presto-change-o!! 10 rounds, it's a semiauto. 12 rounds, it's an auto.
That level of ignorance is astounding.
But then maybe Fendry went to your law-school, too.
By the way, what does economic-loss theory have to do with Eastwood, revolvers, semiautos, or DC--other than the fact that DC is one vast economic loss to the US as a whole?