American Constitution Society panel on DC v. Heller

Moderated by Dahlia Lithwick of Slate, the panel features a discussion with John Payne (formerly of the D.C. Corporation Counsel's office; attorney of record on the Brady amicus brief, and currently head of the NAACP LDF), Carl Bogus (Prof. of Law at Roger Williams, and lead author on a pro-DC amicus brief of some historians) and me. The debate was held at the National Press Club, in Washington, D.C.; the video and audio are available here.

To say Payne and Bogus are disingenuous is to be kind. Bogus actually claims if the court finds for an individual right, then it will mean WMDs in the street. If that isn't the rankest kind of fear mongering, I don't know what could be worse. And Payne's introduction amounts to, "You are all too stupid to understand English, so let me explain how this amendment doesn't mean what you think it does."

I was only disappointed that Dave focused so narrowly on the utility of guns, without being able to branch out more often to counter the arguments of the other opposing briefs. But I guess there's so much stupidity supporting the D.C. ban, and only so much time to combat the mendacity of the ban's supporters.
3.15.2008 5:54am
Paul Milligan (mail) (www):
One gains further understanding of where Carl Bogus got his name from listening to him speak.
3.15.2008 9:43am
And Bogus Jr. sits on the board of the NRA. Interesting. I wonder about the conservations between father and son.
3.15.2008 2:45pm
Jim at FSU (mail):
Oh wow, the Anti-Constitution Society included an opposing viewpoint in one of its debates. How quaint.
3.15.2008 3:04pm
MXE (mail):
I don't envy having to sit between those two snakes.

I also love how the introducer stated that the case could have great real-world effects on the government's ability to enact "gun safety laws." Not on, say, the roughly half of American households that have firearms, or on the right of citizens to defend themselves. No no, this is all about "gun safety laws."
3.15.2008 5:02pm
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):
I'd hate to have that guys last name and be in the business of making arguments.
3.15.2008 11:28pm
Matt_T (mail):
Was anyone else amazed that John Payne compared having a firearm in your own home to a person with an anti-government grudge into a federal building? That has got to be the height of disingenuity.
3.16.2008 12:20am
Matt_T (mail):
Obviously I meant to write "a person with an anti-government grudge carrying a gun into..."
3.16.2008 12:21am
Per Son:
Jim at FSU:

What the heck is your beef?

Both the American Constitution Society and The Federalist Society often have opposing viewpoints for many lectures and always at conferences.
3.16.2008 3:15am
jeremiah wright (mail):
What the heck is your beef?
What the heck is your beef?
Well, ACS is a hackfest, son, and it's beyond belief
Yes, they pretend to neutrality
Yes, they invite the right
But they only ape the Federalists and we all know that's right
That's right they don't have ideas
They only have ideology
Kopel might have well as been a token
Because they ain't invite me
God damn America
God damn Laurence Tribe
How you gonna deny my Second Amendment rights
How the f*** is I gonna survive?
3.16.2008 7:43am
Dan Hamilton:
This was supposed to be a discussion??

This was supposed to have at least 2 sides talking about a subject??


They had 2 people for the "it's a States right" and one guy saying that people need to be able to defend themselves.

Typical DEMOCRAT Lefty BS. Have a talk between someone on the Left and someone on the FAR Left and say you are giving a balanced talk on the subject.

And how about BOTH those (&))(&)(%#^@%)*@#_(* trying to tag anyone who was for an individual right as being a racist slave owner!!

GOD, I expected that the discussion would at least be a little real but that it was so biased that it looked like a propaganda peice, that I didn't expect.

The ACS has NO HONOR, they have NO INTEGERITY, they have NO SHAME. If I was a member I would hang my head in shame and turn in my membership and NEVER tell anyone that I was part of such a group. They a nothing but a propaganda mouthpeice.
3.17.2008 1:51am
doesn't matter:
ACS, in addition to hosting the debate, also had two constitutional scholars (last week) discuss what the appropriate standard of review should be for the Second Amendment once the Sup. Ct. decides that the right to bear arms is an individual one. See here
3.17.2008 11:44am