Guns and Prohibition: "Any discussion begins with reality people want guns..."

[Eleanors38]

So said noted Constitutional scholar, Sanford Levinson on ACCESSNews, KLRU (PBS) in Austin, Texas. Considered a political liberal, the University of Texas at Austin scholar said on the deaf-accessible program (from my notes):

"We've been carrying on the war on drugs for at least forty years. It's unsuccessful. Any discussion begins with the reality people want guns. You cannot stop people from getting alcohol. Same with drugs. The same question undoubtedly would be raised with regard guns."

Elsewhere, Levinson was even more blunt:

"People will not obey any prohibitionist law against firearms."

He went on to deal with the efficacy of gun regulations:

"The awful truth is very few are confident that there is any (real effectiveness with regulation). It's symbolic, makes people feel we are doing something. Studies question actual effectiveness [of regulatory measures]."

Levinson also had questions about the Roberts Court with regard to its recent decisions on the Second:

"Scalia thinks arms can be borne by people. I don't know why (this decision will) distinguish guns from bazookas and machine guns."

It should be noted that Levinson was aware of the argument that arms borne and operated by individuals was the subject, but was unsatisfied with the decision's ability to distinguish. This seems to fall in line with my earlier readings of Levinson wherein he believed that further restrictions on guns would fall to the courts, and not through legislation. He also points to what he considered a contradiction in the Heller decision:

&quot Heller says the) state has no right to adopt a prohibition policy, unlike alcohol where states still have prohibition laws."

Overall, he believes elections will do little to make major change in most any area due to the federal structure of government, likening the process to astrology:

"All stars (states?) have to be aligned."

http://deafnetwork.com/wordpress/blog/2012/10/26/access-news-law-professor-sanford-levinson/

(This link announces the event. I do not think a transcript is yet available.)

[GreenStormCloud]

1. Bazookas are legal to own with no special permit.

A bazooka is nothing more than an empty pipe with some batteries, wires, and a switch shaped like a trigger.

[Eleanors38]

2. I agree. I think Levinson was chiding the Court because it didn't go further...

to define what an infantryman's weapon is. This would follow the (supposed) judicial philosophy of the conservative members of the court: Rule only on the thin gruel provided you, and do not speculate on how green the grass is, or even whether it is grass.

[Callisto32]

3. That is what judges do in common law systems.

They decide controversies between parties, but the parties are charged with putting on their cases regarding those controversies. A judge doesn't object for you, doesn't tell you what you should do if you object, and sure as shootin' doesn't make your case for you.

Speculation is worthless in a court of law, to pretend otherwise is to invite miscarriage of justice.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

4. Sanford Levinson on The Second Amendment as an Individual Right:

"The structure of the Second Amendment within the Bill of Rights proves that the right to bear arms is an individual right, rather than a collective one. The collective rights' idea that the Second Amendment can only be viewed in terms of state or federal power ignores the implication that might be drawn from the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments: the citizenry itself can be viewed as an important third component of republican governance as far as it stands ready to defend republican liberty against the depredations of the other two structures, however futile that might appear as a practical matter." (Sanford Levinson, The Embarrassing Second Amendment)

Levinson has it figured.