Post-Heller blog debate over at Cato Unbound:
Bob Levy (mastermind of Heller), Dennis Henigan (Brady Campaign), and I are blog-debating Heller and its ramifications over at Cato Unbound. Erwin Chemerinsky should join us later in the week.
Features
Stuff from us
Academic Legal Writing: personalized bookplates
Sources on the Second Amendment
Yes, I know. "Someone with too much time on their hands," said the blog commenter.
Do you agree with the position asserted today by Don Kates in the NY Post: "The courts should rule that conviction of such a trivial felony can't deprive such a 'felon' of her right to arms"?
While assisting Dave Hardy in Louisville at the NRA Exhibits Hall, he and I apparently ran into Justice Scott of the Kentucky Supreme Court. Justice Scott brought up his dissent in Posey vs Commonwealth (KY) which was decided February 23, 2006. Posey involved a non-violent felony conviction that resulted in loss of firearms rights for life.
For anyone interested, Justice Scott's opinion presents a very moving example of why the general rule that felons may not possess arms is somewhat overbroad.
The concept of felony originated in a time when virtually all crimes were punishable by death and the modern prison system didn't exist in any recognizable form.
At the very least, we need to separate out felons into two groups:
-felons whose criminal record indicates they will intentionally or inadvertantly (through poor impulse control, substance abuse or insanity) abuse the RKBA
-felons who who do not represent a risk to the public when armed.
The body of non-dangerous felons is probably not that large once you get beyond the potheads and white collar criminals. I personally suspect the vast majority of felons have substance abuse or violence problems that would make as-applied challenges kind of silly.
The DC government considers that thing in the illustration a "machine gun". Is Heller 2 in the works yet?
I would note, however, that this is completely within the "living Constitution" school of interpretation. Scalia is clearly right that the longstanding historical tradition is that felons could be disarmed, based on whatever the applicable code defined as a felony.
First, it doesn't take that much time, especially if you are a professional (which CATO has access to). Second, even if they didn't outsource the logo, they probably gave the task to some intern with a little artistic talent.
I would agree if we were talking about the Constitution itself. There is a historical basis for felons not being allowed firearms. However, a decision to set aside a historical notion is best left for the legislature, unless the Constitution itself demands historical fealty. As a result, IMHO, legislatures are fully equipped to decide whether to create a class of felons who do not lose various rights, including the one to keep and bear arms.
It appears Congress already did at 18 U.S.C. §921(20), stating that a disqualifying felony "does not include - (A) any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices."
One could argue that under any standard of review (short of strict scrutiny, at least), Congress has indeed drawn a defensible line limiting felon-in-possession disqualification at certain criminal "business practice" defendants. Or not. One could also argue that armed price-fixers tend to be no more or less dangerous as a class than, say, the armed securities insider traders who reside in identical McMansions in the same exclusive golf communities.
I wonder what Hennigan has against Douglas Kmiec, to hold Kmiec up for public ridicule by highlighting his absurd essay which among other things criticises Scalia's opinion for not incorporating church doctrine:
Kmiecs main argument is that there is no right to keep and bear arms because his brother-in-law was shot and killed 16 years ago in a robbery, in a city that has had a handgun ban for the past 26 years. All of which of course are devastating constitutional arguments.
Thus, to the extent Congress might be accused of applying an objective standard in exempting "business practice" felonies such as the Sherman Act from felon-in-possession prohibitions, it appears "severity of the offense" was not the criteria used.
I guess it depends on whether the defendant used a gun to get people to join the trust.
I suspect a "whiteness of the offender" test was the criteria. ;)
So "interesting" is the new "disgusting", then? I can't think of a better word (that is permissible to use here) for the revolting spectacle of Chemerinsky holding forth the position that as long as an injustice has been in place for a long time, it should be left in place. Or do I misunderstand him?
I posted the preceding before reading the Chemerinsky clever but dishonest spin on Miller:You can say anything if you get to leave out important little words. Isn't it a much better characterization of Miller to say "safeguarding individual possession of the type of firearms used for military service"?
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.